31006 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

1Public Law 104–264 section 502; 110 Stat. 3259. 

The requirements of PRIA were initially codified at 

49 U.S.C. 44936, which became effective on 

February 7, 1997. Substantive amendments were 

made to PRIA on December 5, 1997 (Pub. L. 105– 

142; 111 Stat. 2650) and April 5, 2000 (Pub. L. 106– 

181; 114 Stat. 61). Currently, the requirements of 

PRIA are codified at 49 U.S.C. 44703(h) and (j). 

2 49 U.S.C. 44703(i) (Pub. L. 111–216, 124 Stat. 

2348 (Aug. 1, 2020)). Referred to as ‘‘the PRD Act’’ 

for the remainder of this preamble. 

3The FAA uses the term corporate flight 

departments to reference operators of two or more 

aircraft conducting operations in furtherance of or 

incidental to a business, solely pursuant to the 

general operating and flight rules in part 91 or 

operating aircraft pursuant to a Letter of Deviation 

Authority issued under § 125.3. This criteria is 

provided in § 111.1(b)(4). 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Parts 11, 91, and 111 

[Docket No.: FAA–2020–0246; Amdt. Nos. 

11–65, 91–363, and 111–1] 

RIN 2120–AK31 

Pilot Records Database 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), U.S. Department 

of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The FAA adopts final 

regulations for the use of an electronic 

Pilot Records Database (PRD) and 

implements statutory requirements to 

facilitate the sharing of pilot records 

among air carriers and other operators 

in an electronic data system managed by 

the FAA. This final rule requires air 

carriers, specific operators holding out 

to the public, entities conducting public 

aircraft operations, air tour operators, 

fractional ownerships, and corporate 

flight departments to enter relevant data 

on individuals employed as pilots into 

the PRD. In addition, this rule identifies 

the air carriers and operators required to 

access the PRD to evaluate the available 

data for each pilot candidate prior to 

making a hiring decision. 

DATES: 

Effective date: This rule is effective 

August 9, 2021, except for the 

amendments at instruction 7, which is 

effective October 8, 2021; instructions 8 

and 9, which are effective June 10, 2022; 

instructions 4, 11, and 12, which are 

effective September 9, 2024; instruction 

13, which is effective September 8, 

2027; and instructions 6, 10, and 14, 

which are effective September 10, 2029. 

Compliance dates: For the 

requirements in § 111.15, compliance is 

required by September 8, 2021. 

Compliance with subpart B of part 111 

is required beginning June 10, 2022, 

except the requirements in 

§ 111.105(b)(1), for which compliance is 

required beginning December 7, 2021. 

Compliance with subpart C of part 111 

is required beginning June 10, 2022. 

In § 111.255, compliance for reporting 

historical records that date on or after 

January 1, 2015 is required by June 12, 

2023. Compliance for reporting 

historical records that date before 

January 1, 2015 is required by 

September 9, 2024. Concurrent 

compliance with the requirements of the 

Pilot Records Improvement Act will end 

on September 9, 2024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher Morris, 3500 S MacArthur 

Blvd., ARB301, Oklahoma City, 

Oklahoma 73179; telephone (405) 954– 

4646; email christopher.morris@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose of the Final Rule 

B. Overview of the Final Rule 

C. Summary of Benefits, Costs, and Cost 

Savings 

II. Authority for This Rulemaking 

III. Background 

A. Statement of the Problem 

B. History of PRIA and PRD 

IV. Comments Regarding General Issues, 

Applicability, Pilot Privacy, and the 

Transition From PRIA 

A. General Support or Opposition 

B. Applicability of the Rule 

C. Pilot Privacy 

D. Transition From PRIA to PRD 

V. Section-by-Section Discussion of 

Regulatory Text 

A. Subpart A—General 

B. Subpart B—Access to and Evaluation of 

Records 

C. Subpart C—Reporting of Records by 

Operators 

D. Subpart D—Pilot Access and 

Responsibilities 

E. Other Amendments 

F. Other Comments 

G. Comments Related to Regulatory Notices 

and Analyses 

VI. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

A. Regulatory Evaluation 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

C. International Trade Impact Assessment 

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

F. International Compatibility and 

Cooperation 

G. Environmental Analysis 

H. Privacy Analysis 

VII. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

C. Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation 

VIII. How To Obtain Additional Information 

A. Rulemaking Documents 

B. Comments Submitted to the Docket 

C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act 

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms 

Used Frequently in This Document 

AC—Advisory Circular 

ARC—Aviation Rulemaking Committee 

CFR—Code of Federal Regulations 

FOIA—Freedom of Information Act 

InFO—Information for Operators 

NDR—National Driver Register 

NPRM—Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

NTSB—National Transportation Safety Board 

PAC—Public Aircraft Operations, Air Tour 

Operators, Corporate Flight Departments 

PAO—Public Aircraft Operations 

PAR—PRD Airman Record 

PRD—Pilot Records Database 

PRIA—Pilot Records Improvement Act 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose of the Final Rule 

This final rule amends Title 14 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) by 

adding new part 111, Pilot Records 

Database (PRD). This final rule 

facilitates the transition from the 

information-sharing requirements of the 

Pilot Records Improvement Act (PRIA) 1

to an FAA-established electronic 

database, as required by the PRD Act.2

This final rule modernizes pilot 

record-sharing as it occurs currently 

under PRIA. The PRD will serve as a 

repository for pilot records and will 

contain records from a pilot’s current 

and former employers, as well as the 

FAA. The FAA envisions that the PRD 

not only will be an indicator of pilots’ 

abilities or deficiencies, but also that it 

will prompt conversations between 

applicants and hiring employers. PRD is 

intended to help ensure that no records 

about a pilot’s performance with 

previous employers that could influence 

a future employer’s decision go 

unidentified. 

B. Overview of the Final Rule 

This final rule requires all 14 CFR 

part 119 certificate holders, fractional 

ownership programs, persons holding a 

letter of authorization (LOA) to conduct 

air tour operations in accordance with 

§ 91.147, persons conducting certain 

operations under part 91 or part 125 

(referenced as ‘‘corporate flight 

departments’’ or ‘‘corporate operators’’ 

in this preamble),3 and governmental 

entities conducting public aircraft 

operations (PAO) to report records to 

the pilot records database in new 14 

CFR part 111. This rule uses the term 

‘‘reporting entity’’ when referencing 

such requirements. 

Part 119 certificate holders, fractional 

ownership programs and persons 

conducting air tour operations must 

review records prior to allowing an 

individual to begin service as a pilot. 

This rule refers to the different operators 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31007 

subject to part 111 as ‘‘operators’’ 

generally, but also as ‘‘reviewing entity’’ 

when referencing these requirements. 

The PRD will contain the required 

operator and FAA records for the life of 

the pilot and will function as a hiring 

tool that an operator will use in making 

decisions regarding pilot employment. 

Employers cannot search the PRD 

indiscriminately, as an operator that 

wishes to view records can see a pilot’s 

record only if that pilot has granted 

consent to that hiring employer. Pilot 

consent is time-limited and the duration 

is specified by the pilot. The FAA 

anticipates the PRD will improve pilot 

privacy because only specific data 

elements are required to be submitted, 

in contrast to current practice under 

PRIA, in which pilot records are 

exchanged in their entirety. The PRD 

will indicate what records exist about a 

pilot; the operator is responsible for 

determining if it is necessary to obtain 

further information prior to permitting 

an individual to begin service as a pilot. 

The Pilot Records Database Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 

published on March 30, 2020, and the 

comment period closed June 29, 2020. 

The FAA received approximately 800 

comments. After careful consideration 

of these comments and thoughtful 

review of the proposal, the FAA adopts 

this final rule with certain modifications 

from the proposal. These modifications 

will reduce burdens while achieving the 

safety goals Congress intended for the 

PRD. The modifications will: 

• Remove the proposed user fee to 

access the database for review of pilot 

records. 

• Update the method of reporting to 

the PRD for certain operators without a 

part 119 certificate. Instead of providing 

records contemporaneously for all pilots 

employed, corporate flight departments, 

air tour operations, and public aircraft 

operations will be permitted not to 

upload training, disciplinary, and 

separation from employment records to 

the PRD unless and until requested by 

a hiring operator. Certain termination 

and disciplinary action records must be 

reported contemporaneously, however. 

• Revise the level of detail required 

for reporting certain training and 

checking; disciplinary action; and 

separation from employment events to 

ensure all relevant records are captured 

while reducing subjectivity. 

• Amend the compliance schedule, as 

set forth in the table below: 

TABLE 1—TIMELINE FOR REPORTING AND REVIEWING RESPONSIBILITIES

Date 90 Days after 

publication 

180 Days after 

publication 

One year after 

publication 

Two years after 

publication 

Three years and 90 days 

after publication 

Event ......... Submit application for database access.Reviewing entities use the 

PRD for the 

FAA records 

review.

Begin reporting current pilot 

records, historical records; begin 

reviewing operator records in the 

PRD.

Complete historical record reporting for records dating on or after 

January 1, 2015.

Compliance with PRIA will no 

longer be available as an alternative to PRD; full compliance 

with PRD required. Historical 

record upload complete. 

Entity ......... Reporting entities 

and reviewing 

entities.

Reviewing entities.Reporting entities and reviewing 

entities.

Reporting entities subject to 

§ 111.255.

Reporting entities, reviewing entities. 

14 CFR part 111 contains four 

subparts. Subpart A contains the general 

requirements of part 111, including how 

to submit an application for database 

access and other details about user roles 

within the PRD. Subpart B provides 

requirements for operators reviewing 

records—in particular, details regarding 

employer obligations during the record 

review process for both the FAA records 

and records submitted by an entity 

reporting records. Subpart C contains 

provisions for record reporting, 

including which records to report and 

timelines for reporting records. Subpart 

D provides requirements and 

information regarding pilots’ access to 

the PRD. 

1. PRD Access Requirements and 

Restrictions 

Subpart A of part 111 provides 

general requirements for use of the PRD. 

It includes provisions on applicability, 

definitions, requirements for 

compliance timeframes, database access, 

fraud and falsification, and record 

retention. 

Part 111 applies to each operator 

holding an air carrier or operating 

certificate issued in accordance with 

part 119 and authorized to conduct 

operations under part 121, part 125, or 

part 135; operators holding an LOA 

issued under § 91.147; operators holding 

management specifications for a 

fractional ownership program under 

subpart K of part 91; operators 

conducting operations as a corporate 

flight department; entities conducting 

certain PAO operations; trustees in 

bankruptcy of any operator; pilots; and 

other persons who might access the 

PRD. Part 111 does not apply to any 

foreign air carrier or operator of U.S. 

registered aircraft. 

Designated responsible persons under 

part 111 must apply for access to the 

PRD. Such persons will manage records 

and user accounts, and be responsible 

for all actions taken within the PRD for 

a particular operator, entity, or trustee. 

This rule provides a list of the 

appropriate management positions that 

will qualify to serve as a responsible 

person for an operator. Consistent with 

Congress’ direction that the FAA protect 

the privacy and confidentiality of pilot 

records in the PRD, part 111 provides 

specific requirements for the 

responsible person’s application that 

will enable the FAA to evaluate 

sufficiently each request for access. The 

responsible person may delegate his or 

her authority to access the database to 

certain other persons, but continued 

access is contingent on the validity of 

the responsible person’s electronic 

access. 

The FAA will deny database access to 

any person for failure to comply with 

any of the duties and responsibilities 

prescribed under part 111, or as 

necessary to preserve the security and 

integrity of the database. No person may 

use the database for any purpose except 

as expressly authorized under part 111 

and no person may share, distribute, 

publish, or otherwise release any record 

accessed in the database to any person 

or individual not directly involved in 

the hiring decision, unless specifically 

authorized by law, or unless the person 

sharing the record is the subject of the 

record. 

Lastly, subpart A contains 

requirements concerning the length of 

time that records pertaining to an 

individual must remain within the PRD. 

Such records must remain in the 

database until either the FAA receives 

official notification of a pilot’s death or 

an FAA audit of the database indicates 

that 99 years have passed since the date 

of birth on record for a particular pilot. 

2. Access to and Evaluation of Records 

Under subpart B of part 111, part 119 

certificate holders, fractional ownership 

programs, air tour operations holding a 

letter of authorization under § 91.147, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
31008 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

and trustees in bankruptcy of those 

entities must review a pilot’s records in 

the PRD prior to permitting the pilot to 

begin service as a required flight 

crewmember. These operators are 

‘‘reviewing entities.’’ In order to access 

and evaluate a pilot’s records, a 

reviewing entity must receive consent 

from that pilot. 

As set forth in the PRD Act, each 

reviewing entity must preserve the 

privacy and confidentiality of the 

records accessed in the database and the 

persons accessing the records on behalf 

of each reviewing entity are subject to 

all terms of access set forth in subpart 

A. 

Reviewing entities must evaluate both 

the FAA records and records provided 

by an operator (reporting entity) subject 

to this rule. The FAA records include: 

• Records related to current pilot and 

medical certificate information, 

including associated type ratings and 

information on any limitations to those 

certificates and ratings; 

• Records maintained by the 

Administrator concerning any failed 

attempt of an individual to pass a 

practical test required to obtain a 

certificate or type rating under 14 CFR 

part 61; 

• Records related to enforcement 

actions resulting in a finding by the 

Administrator that was not 

subsequently overturned of a violation 

of Title 49 of the United States Code or 

a regulation prescribed or order issued 

under that title; and 

• Records related to an individual 

acting as pilot in command or second in 

command during an aviation accident or 

incident. 

Reviewing entities must also evaluate 

non-FAA records that the FAA includes 

in the PRD. Such records consist of an 

individual’s pre-employment drug and 

alcohol testing history and other U.S. 

Department of Transportation drug and 

alcohol testing, including verified 

positive drug test results, alcohol 

misuse violations, including confirmed 

alcohol results of 0.04 or greater, and 

refusals to submit to drug or alcohol 

testing. Reviewing entities must begin 

using the PRD to evaluate the FAA 

records December 7, 2021. 

Each reviewing entity must also 

evaluate any records submitted to the 

PRD by a reporting entity and must 

begin evaluating these records in the 

PRD on June 10, 2022. Reviewing 

entities must also evaluate any records 

obtained through the National Driver 

Register (NDR) process from the chief 

driver licensing official of a State. 

Due to the possibility that a reporting 

entity might have additional records on 

request, the reviewing entity must 

compare the pilot’s list of former 

employers dating back five years and 

verify that no discrepancy exists 

between the pilot-provided employment 

history and the records available in the 

PRD. 

3. Reporting of Records 

Subpart C of part 111 requires 

reporting entities to submit records for 

each individual employed as a pilot, 

including drug and alcohol testing 

records under part 120, if applicable; 

training, qualification, and proficiency 

records, as applicable; final disciplinary 

action records; records concerning 

separation of employment; verification 

of a motor vehicle driving record search; 

and historical records. These records 

generally must be reported to the PRD 

contemporaneously, which for purposes 

of this preamble means within the time 

set by the FAA upon occurrence of the 

event causing creation of the record, 

typically 30 days. 

Reporting entities include all 

reviewing entities, as well as corporate 

flight departments and public aircraft 

operations. Pursuant to the PRD Act, 

this rule includes requirements for 

record reporting by a trustee appointed 

by a bankruptcy court for an operator or 

entity subject to part 111, subpart C. 

This trustee must comply with all 

reporting requirements in part 111. 

Certain records are not subject to 

required contemporaneous reporting. 

Each operator conducting PAO; air tour 

operations; and corporate flight 

departments are not required to report 

training qualification and proficiency 

records, certain final disciplinary action 

records, or certain records concerning 

separation of employment, unless and 

until they receive a request from a 

reviewing entity. If, however, the record 

memorializes a disciplinary action 

resulting in permanent or temporary 

removal of the pilot from aircraft 

operations or separation from 

employment resulting in termination, 

the record must be reported to the PRD 

contemporaneously. These operators 

must retain all records eligible for 

reporting upon request. If records are 

not available at the time of the request 

from the reviewing entity, these 

reporting entities must provide written 

confirmation to the FAA that no records 

are available. 

No reporting entity may report pilot 

records related to a safety event that the 

entity reported as part of the Aviation 

Safety Action Program (ASAP) or any 

other approved Voluntary Safety 

Reporting Program. 

If a reporting entity discovers or is 

informed that previously reported 

records contain inaccurate information, 

that entity must correct the record 

within 10 days of knowledge that the 

record contains an error. When the 

reporting entity does not agree that the 

record contains an error, it must notify 

the pilot that the dispute will be 

resolved in accordance with the 

reporting entity’s dispute resolution 

procedures. Each reporting entity must 

have a documented process for 

investigating and resolving record 

disputes in a reasonable amount of time. 

Once resolved, final disposition of the 

dispute must be documented in the 

PRD. 

Air carriers and operators required to 

report historical records must complete 

submission of historical records 

generated on or after January 1, 2015 by 

June 12, 2023. Historical records 

preceding January 1, 2015 must be 

reported by September 9, 2024. 

4. Pilot Access and Responsibilities 

Subpart D of part 111 establishes 

requirements that apply to a pilot’s 

access to the PRD. Each pilot must 

submit an application to the FAA to 

validate that pilot’s identity for access to 

the PRD. Pilots provide consent to a 

reviewing entity to view their records 

through the PRD. Access also enables 

pilots to review their own records in the 

PRD. In the event a pilot is not able to 

meet the identity validation 

requirements associated with accessing 

the PRD, a pilot can receive a paper 

copy of his or her records by submitting 

a form to the FAA. 

Pilots are responsible for designating 

which reviewing entities are able to 

access records for review. Before any 

operator may access a pilot’s records in 

the PRD, the pilot must give written 

consent, designating the reviewing 

entity that will be allowed to access that 

pilot’s records. Pilots must also provide 

separate written consent for operators to 

submit a request to the NDR for the 

pilot’s motor vehicle driving record. 

Pilots must verify that their 

employment history is complete and 

accurate. In addition, pilots who 

identify errors or inaccuracies in their 

respective PRD records are responsible 

for reporting the errors to the PRD. Once 

the FAA receives a report from the pilot 

of an error or inaccuracy, the FAA will 

designate the record as ‘‘in dispute’’ in 

the PRD. The record will remain 

designated as such until the entity that 

reported the record either corrects the 

record or completes the dispute 

resolution process. 

5. Transition to PRD 

Operators currently comply with 

PRIA. Continued use of PRIA is required 

to support a successful transition to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31009 

4Public Law 111–216, 124 Stat. 2348 (Aug. 1, 

2010). 

PRD. By September 9, 2024, the FAA 

intends to complete the transition from 

PRIA to PRD. 

To support the transition, all 

operators subject to the applicability of 

part 111 must submit a responsible 

person application not later than 

September 8, 2021. The FAA will begin 

working with each subject operator and 

entity to facilitate a smooth transition. 

Additionally, reviewing entities must 

use the PRD to review the FAA records, 

beginning December 7, 2021. 

Once the PRD begins accepting 

records on June 10, 2022, reporting 

entities must submit any new records 

generated on or after that date to the 

PRD. During this time, reporting entities 

must continue to respond to PRIA 

requests for historical records or, 

alternatively, report those historical 

records directly to the PRD for review. 

The PRD will display either a statement 

indicating a reporting entity has 

completed reporting all records for a 

pilot or a statement that the reviewing 

entity needs to submit a PRIA request to 

the reporting entity for records. The 

FAA envisions that as time goes on, 

records will be pre-populated in the 

PRD and any duplicative review of 

records will phase out. Duplicative 

reporting is never required; a reporting 

entity may always, beginning on June 

10, 2022, upload a record to the PRD 

instead of responding to a PRIA request. 

Reviewing entities must also begin 

reviewing records in the PRD on June 

10, 2022, while continuing to comply 

with PRIA. 

C. Summary of Benefits, Costs, and Cost 

Savings 

This rule promotes aviation safety by 

facilitating operators’ consideration of 

pilot skill and performance when 

making hiring and personnel 

management decisions by using the 

most accurate pilot records available 

and by making those records accessible 

electronically. After the effective date of 

the rule, operators will incur costs to 

report pilot records to the PRD and to 

train and register as users of the PRD. 

Operators will receive future cost 

savings once PRIA is phased out. The 

FAA will incur costs related to the 

operations and maintenance of the PRD. 

Over a 10-year period of analysis 

(2021–2030), this rule results in present 

value net costs (costs less savings) to 

industry and the FAA of about $67.0 

million or $9.5 million annualized using 

a seven percent discount rate. Using a 

three percent discount rate, this rule 

results in present value net costs of 

about $71.0 million or about $8.3 

million annualized. 

This rule provides recurring annual 

cost savings to industry because the 

PRD would replace PRIA three years 

and 90 days after the rule is published. 

Under PRIA, air carriers, operators, and 

pilots complete and mail, fax, or email 

forms to authorize requests for the 

provision of pilots’ records. Under the 

PRD, most of this process will occur 

electronically. Over a 10-year period of 

analysis (2021–2030), the rule provides 

present value cost savings to industry of 

about $21.2 million or $3.0 million 

annualized using a seven percent 

discount rate. Using a three percent 

discount rate, the present value cost 

savings to industry is about $27.4 

million or about $3.2 million 

annualized. After the discontinuance of 

PRIA, the annual recurring cost savings 

will more than offset the recurring 

annual costs of the rule. 

The following table summarizes the 

benefits, costs, and cost savings of the 

rule to industry and the FAA. 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF BENEFITS, 

COSTS, AND COST SAVINGS

Benefits 

• Promotes aviation safety by facilitating operators’ consideration of pilot skill and performance when making hiring and personnel management decisions. 

• Provides faster retrieval of pilot records 

compared to PRIA. 

• Reduces inaccurate information and interpretation compared to PRIA. 

• Provides easier storage of and access to 

pilot records than PRIA. 

• Allows pilots to consent to release and review of records. 

Summary of costs and cost savings * 

($millions) 

Category 

10-Year 

present value 

(7%) 

Annualized 

(7%) 

10-Year 

present value 

(3%) 

Annualized 

(3%) 

Costs ................................................................................................................ 88.2 12.6 98.5 11.5 

Cost Savings .................................................................................................... (21.2) (3.0) (27.4) (3.2) 

Net Costs .................................................................................................. 67.0 9.5 71.0 8.3 

* Table Notes: Columns may not sum due to rounding. Savings are shown in parentheses to distinguish from costs. Estimates are provided at 

seven and three percent discount rates per Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance. Industry and FAA costs are higher in the beginning of the period of analysis than industry cost savings that occur later in the period of analysis after the discontinuance of PRIA three years 

and 90 days after the rule is published. This results in larger annualized estimates of costs and net costs at a seven percent discount rate compared to a three percent discount rate. 

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.). This 

rulemaking is promulgated under the 

general authority described in 49 U.S.C. 

106(f), which establishes the authority 

of the Administrator to promulgate 

regulations and rules, and the specific 

authority provided by section 203 of the 

Airline Safety and Federal Aviation 

Administration Extension Act of 2010, 

herein called the PRD Act,4 codified at 

49 U.S.C. 44703(h)–(k). The PRD Act 

identifies several rulemaking 

requirements. 

The PRD Act requires the 

Administrator to promulgate regulations 

to establish an electronic pilot records 

database containing records from the 

FAA and records maintained by air 

carriers and other persons that employ 

pilots. At a minimum, air carriers and 

persons employing pilots must report 

‘‘records that are generated by the air 

carrier or other person after [August 1, 

2010]’’ as well as ‘‘records that the air 

carrier or other person [was] 

maintaining, on [August 1, 2010],’’ on 

any person employed as a pilot. The 

PRD Act also requires air carriers to 

access the database and evaluate any 

relevant records maintained therein 

pertaining to an individual before 

allowing that individual to begin service 

as a pilot. 

The FAA is further required to issue 

regulations to protect and secure the 

personal privacy of any individual 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
31010 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

5Clarifications to Pilot Records Improvement Act 

of 1996, H.R. Rep. 105–372 (Oct. 31, 1997), 

explained certain clarifying amendments made to 

PRIA in Public Law 105–142, 111 Stat. 2650 (Dec. 

5, 1997), and listed the following accidents as 

evidence supporting the enactment of PRIA: 

Continental Airlines flight 1713 (November 15, 

1987); Trans-Colorado flight 2286 (January 19, 

1988); AV Air flight 3378 (February 19, 1988); 

Aloha Island Air flight 1712 (October 28, 1989); 

Scenic Air flight 22 (April 22, 1992); Express II 

flight 5719 (December 1, 1993); and American Eagle 

flight 3379 (December 13, 1994). Each of these 

operators held a part 119 air carrier certificate and 

most of the flights occurred under 14 CFR part 135, 

except Continental Airlines flight 1713, which was 

operated under 14 CFR part 121. 

6See NTSB Report AAR–04/03 (Adopted October 

13, 2004) at page 47, which can be obtained at 

http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Accident

Reports/Reports/AAR0403.pdf. 

7See NTSB Report AAR–04/03 at page 43. 

8Letter to Marion C. Blakey Re Safety 

Recommendation A–05–01 and –02 (Jan. 27, 2005), 

available at http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/ 

RecLetters/A05_01_02.pdf. 

9NTSB Report AAR–10/01 at 155 (Feb. 2, 2010), 

available at http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/ 

AccidentReports/Reports/AAR1001.pdf. 

10 Id. 

11 Id. 

12NTSB Safety Recommendation A–10–019 in 

Letter from NTSB Chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman 

to FAA Administrator J. Randolph Babbitt dated 

Feb. 23, 2010 at 26, available at https://

www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/recletters/A-10- 

010-034.pdf. 

13NTSB Safety Recommendation A–10–017 in 

Letter from NTSB Chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman 

to FAA Administrator J. Randolph Babbitt dated 

Feb. 23, 2010 at 57, available at https://

www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/recletters/A-10- 

010-034.pdf. By letter dated February 21, 2014, the 

NTSB reported that ‘‘pending implementation of 

the PRD, including guidance about when comments 

are needed in PRD entries, Safety Recommendation 

A–10–017 remains classified Open–Acceptable 

Response.’’ 

whose records are accessed in the new 

electronic database; to protect and 

secure the confidentiality of those 

records; and, to prevent further 

dissemination of those records once 

accessed by an air carrier. The PRD Act 

also requires the implementing 

regulations to prescribe a timetable for 

the implementation of the PRD as well 

as a schedule for expiration of the 

application of the Pilot Records 

Improvement Act of 1996. 

III. Background 

A. Statement of the Problem 

The Pilot Records Improvement Act 

(PRIA) was enacted in 1997 in response 

to a series of accidents attributed to 

pilot error.5 The National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 

found that although the pilots had a 

history of poor training performance or 

other indicators of impaired judgment, 

their employers had not investigated the 

pilots’ backgrounds. 

Two accidents following the 

enactment and implementation of PRIA 

led the NTSB to make additional 

findings and recommendations 

regarding retention of pilot records; the 

sharing of information related to pilot 

performance among operators; and 

operators’ review of previous 

performance records. On July 13, 2003, 

Air Sunshine Incorporated flight 527 (d/ 

b/a Tropical Aviation Services, Inc.) 

ditched in the Atlantic Ocean about 7 

nautical miles west-northwest of 

Treasure Cay Airport (MYAT), The 

Bahamas, after an in-flight failure of the 

right engine. The flight was conducted 

under the operating rule of 14 CFR part 

135, as a scheduled international, 

passenger-commuter flight. Out of nine 

total passengers, two passengers died 

after evacuating the airplane and five 

passengers sustained minor injuries. 

The pilot sustained minor injuries and 

the airplane sustained substantial 

damage. The NTSB determined that 

‘‘the probable cause of the accident was 

the in-flight failure of the right engine 

and the pilot’s failure to adequately 

manage the airplane’s performance after 

the engine failed.’’ 6 The NTSB also 

found that ‘‘the pilot had a history of 

below-average flight proficiency, 

including numerous failed flight tests, 

before the flight accident, which 

contributed to his inability to maintain 

maximum flight performance and reach 

land after the right engine failed.’’ 7

In response to the Air Sunshine 527 

accident, the NTSB issued 

recommendation A–05–01, in which it 

advised the FAA to require all ‘‘part 121 

and 135 air carriers to obtain any 

notices of disapproval for flight checks 

for certificates and ratings for all pilotapplicants and evaluate this information 

before making a hiring decision.’’ 8 The 

NTSB recognized the importance of 

validating FAA ratings and 

certifications, as required by PRIA, but 

noted that ‘‘additional data contained in 

FAA records, including records of flight 

check failures and rechecks, would be 

beneficial for a potential employer to 

review and evaluate.’’ The NTSB 

acknowledged that while ‘‘a single 

notice of disapproval for a flight check, 

along with an otherwise successful 

record of performance, should not 

adversely affect a hiring decision,’’ a 

history of ‘‘multiple notices of 

disapproval for a flight check might be 

significant . . . and should be evaluated 

before a hiring decision is made.’’ 

On February 12, 2009, Colgan Air, 

Inc. flight 3407 (d/b/a Continental 

Connection), crashed into a residence in 

Clarence Center, New York, about 5 

nautical miles northeast of the Buffalo 

Niagara International Airport, New 

York, resulting in the death of all 49 

passengers on board and one person on 

the ground. The flight occurred under 

14 CFR part 121. 

The NTSB determined that ‘‘the 

probable cause of this accident was the 

captain’s inappropriate response to 

activation of the stick shaker, which led 

to an aerodynamic stall from which the 

airplane did not recover.’’ 9 Contributing 

factors included: ‘‘(1) the flightcrew’s 

failure to monitor airspeed in relation to 

the rising position of the low-speed cue, 

(2) the flightcrew’s failure to adhere to 

sterile cockpit procedures, (3) the 

captain’s failure to effectively manage 

the flight, and (4) Colgan Air’s 

inadequate procedures for airspeed 

selection and management during 

approaches in icing conditions.’’ 10

Additional safety issues the NTSB 

identified included deficiencies in the 

air carrier’s recordkeeping system and 

its analysis of the flightcrew’s 

qualifications and previous 

performance. Specifically, Colgan Air’s 

check airman stated that the captain had 

failed his initial proficiency check on 

the Saab 340 on October 15, 2007, 

received additional training, and passed 

his upgrade proficiency check on the 

next day; however, the company’s 

electronic records indicated that the 

second check was conducted 12 days 

after the failure. The NTSB deemed 

these discrepancies in the captain’s 

training records as noteworthy because 

the captain had demonstrated previous 

training difficulties during his tenure at 

Colgan Air.11 In addition to this failed 

check, the captain failed his practical 

tests for the instrument rating (airplane 

category) on October 1, 1991 and for the 

commercial pilot certificate (singleengine land airplane) on May 14, 2002, 

and required additional training in three 

separate training events while a first 

officer at Colgan. 

As a result of its investigation, the 

NTSB issued recommendation A–10– 

019 to recommend that the FAA require 

all ‘‘part 121, 135, and 91K operators to 

provide the training records requested 

in Safety Recommendation A–10–17 to 

hiring employers to fulfill their 

requirement under PRIA.’’ 12 Safety 

Recommendation A–10–017 advises the 

FAA to require all ‘‘part 121, 135, and 

91K operators to document and retain 

electronic and/or paper records of pilot 

training and checking events in 

sufficient detail so that the carrier and 

its principal operations inspector can 

fully assess a pilot’s entire training 

performance.’’ 13

In the Colgan Air 3407 final aircraft 

accident report, the NTSB noted the 

issuance of Safety Recommendation A– 

05–01 as a result of the Air Sunshine 

527 accident. The NTSB indicated its 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31011 

14Advisory Circular—Pilot Records Improvement 

Act of 1996 (June 21, 2016), available at https://

www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_

Circular/AC_120-68G.pdf. 

15Public Law 114–190 section 2101 (July 15, 

2016). 16 85 FR 17660. 

17The FAA was appropriated ‘‘under section 

106(k)(1) of the PRD Act and codified at U.S.C. 

44703(i)(14), a total of $6,000,000 for fiscal years 

2010 through 2013’’ in order to establish a pilot 

records database. 

18Fact Sheet—Update on the FAA’s Call to 

Action to Enhance Airline Safety (Jan. 27, 2010), 

available at https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/ 

news_story.cfm?newsId=11125. 

19Advisory Circular—Pilot Records Improvement 

Act of 1996 (July 2, 2010), available at https://

www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_

Circular/AC%20120-68E.pdf. 

20The PRD ARC charter is available at http://

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/ 

committees/documents/media/ 

PRD.ARC.cht.20110203.pdf. 

21The ARC report is available in the public 

docket for this rulemaking and is also available at 

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ 

rulemaking/committees/documents/index.cfm/ 

document/information?documentID=312. 

22 InFOs are documents the FAA issues that 

contain information and recommendations. 

continued recommendation that airman 

certification information concerning 

previous notices of disapproval should 

be included in an air carrier’s 

assessment of the suitability of a pilotapplicant. The NTSB also indicated that 

notices of disapproval should be 

considered safety-related records that 

must be included in an air carrier’s 

evaluation of a pilot’s career 

progression. While recognizing that the 

FAA had revised Advisory Circular (AC) 

120–68G: The Pilot Records 

Improvement Act of 1996 (AC120–68G), 

(June 21, 2016) to indicate that the 

hiring employer may, at its discretion, 

request a record of an individual’s 

notices of disapproval for flight checks 

from the FAA,14 the NTSB advised that 

a rulemaking would ensure that air 

carriers are required to obtain and 

evaluate notices of disapprovals for 

pilot-applicants. 

Following the Colgan Air 3407 

accident, Congress enacted the PRD Act. 

The PRD Act required the FAA to 

establish an electronic pilot records 

database and provided for the 

subsequent sunset of PRIA. Congress 

has since enacted the FAA Extension, 

Safety, and Security Act of 2016 

(FESSA), which required the FAA to 

establish the electronic pilot records 

database by April 30, 2017.15

On February 23, 2019, Atlas Air Inc. 

(Atlas) flight 3591, a Boeing 767, was 

destroyed after it descended rapidly 

from an altitude of about 6,000 ft mean 

sea level (MSL) and crashed in Trinity 

Bay, Texas, about 41 miles eastsoutheast of George Bush 

Intercontinental/Houston Airport (IAH), 

Houston, Texas, resulting in the death of 

the captain, first officer, and a 

nonrevenue pilot riding in the jump 

seat. Atlas operated the airplane as a 

part 121 domestic cargo flight. 

The NTSB determined that the 

probable cause of this accident was an 

inappropriate response by the first 

officer as the pilot flying to an 

inadvertent activation of the go-around 

mode, which led to his spatial 

disorientation and nose-down control 

inputs that placed the airplane in a 

steep descent from which the crew did 

not recover. Contributing to the 

accident, according to the NTSB, were 

systemic deficiencies in the aviation 

industry’s selection and performance 

measurement practices, which failed to 

address the first officer’s aptituderelated deficiencies and maladaptive 

stress response. The NTSB also noted 

the FAA’s failure to implement the PRD 

as a contributing factor. 

Consequently, the NTSB issued two 

new safety recommendations. 

Recommendation A–20–34 states: 

Implement the pilot records database and 

ensure that it includes all industry records 

for all training started by a pilot as part of 

the employment process for any Title 14 

Code of Federal Regulations Part 119 

certificate holder, air tour operator, fractional 

ownership program, corporate flight 

department, or governmental entity 

conducting public aircraft operations 

regardless of the pilot’s employment status 

and whether the training was completed. 

Recommendation A–20–35 states: 

Ensure that industry records maintained in 

the pilot records database are searchable by 

a pilot’s certificate number to enable a hiring 

operator to obtain all background records for 

a pilot reported by all previous employers. 

On March 30, 2020, the FAA 

responded to the legislative mandates 

and NTSB recommendations by 

publishing the PRD Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal 

Register.16 Consistent with NTSB 

recommendation A–05–01, the FAA 

proposed to require all operators to 

access and evaluate an individual’s 

records in the PRD before making a 

hiring decision. These records would 

include any notices of disapproval the 

individual received during a practical 

test attempt for a certificate or rating. 

The proposed rule stated the FAA 

would upload data processed in the 

Certification Airmen Information 

System (CAIS) on a nightly basis to 

ensure both air carriers and operators 

have the most accurate and up-to-date 

information to make an informed hiring 

decision. Second, consistent with A– 

10–17 and A–10–19, the FAA proposed 

to require air carriers and operators to 

enter relevant information into the PRD 

in a standardized format. 

Implementation of this rule is 

responsive to both new NTSB 

recommendations. Specifically, 

regarding Recommendation A–20–34, 

the FAA only has authority to require 

reporting of records by operators that 

have actually employed the pilot; 

however, the PRD will apply to records 

concerning training prior to the pilot 

beginning service as a pilot 

crewmember. 

B. History of PRIA and PRD 

Congress enacted PRIA to ensure that 

air carriers adequately investigate each 

pilot’s employment background and 

other information pertaining to pilot 

performance before allowing that 

individual to serve as a flight 

crewmember in air carrier operations. 

PRIA requires a hiring air carrier to 

obtain records from three sources 

utilizing standardized forms including: 

(1) Current and previous air carriers or 

operators that had employed the 

individual as a pilot, (2) the FAA, and 

(3) the National Driver Register (NDR). 

The provisions of PRIA were selfimplementing and the FAA’s role was 

limited; therefore, there was no need for 

the FAA to develop implementing 

regulations. The FAA issued AC120– 

68G, which provided guidance for air 

carriers, operators and pilots regarding 

compliance with the PRIA statute. In 

advance of this rulemaking, the FAA 

moved its PRIA records to an electronic 

pilot record database, the first phase of 

PRD.17 Use of the PRD for review of 

FAA records is voluntary under PRIA. 

Following the Colgan Air 3407 

accident, the FAA issued a Call to 

Action on Airline Safety and Pilot 

Training. The FAA published an Airline 

Safety and Pilot Training Action Plan 18

that included a number of key 

initiatives including a focused review of 

air carrier flight crewmember training, 

qualification, and management 

practices. In addition, the FAA updated 

AC 120–68E 19 on July 2, 2010, and 

incorporated elements from the Plan. 

In response to the PRD Act, the FAA 

Administrator chartered the PRD 

Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) 

on February 3, 2011.20 The PRD ARC 

submitted a final report to the Associate 

Administrator for Aviation Safety on 

July 29, 2011. A copy of the report is in 

the public docket for this rulemaking.21

The FAA also issued further 

communications regarding pilot records. 

The FAA published an Information for 

Operators (InFO) 22 on August 15, 2011 

(InFO 11014), advising all operators that 

conduct operations in accordance with 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
31012 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

23http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_

industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/info/all_

infos/media/2011/InFO11014.pdf. 

24Pilot Records Database—Status Update http:// 

www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_

operators/airline_safety/info/all_infos/media/ 2014/ 

InFO14005.pdf. 

25National policy notice N8900.279, ‘‘Pilot 

Records Retention Responsibilities Related to the 

Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration 

Act of 2010,’’ is available at http://www.faa.gov/ 

documentLibrary/media/Notice/N_8900.279.pdf. 

See also 49 U.S.C. 44703(i)(4)(B)(ii)(II). 

26The Families of Continental Flight 3407 is an 

organization of family members and close friends of 

the victims of Continental Flight 3407 which 

crashed on February 12, 2009. This rule refers to 

that event as Colgan Air 3407. 

27The term ‘‘part 91 operators’’ refers to 

operations that occur solely under the regulatory 

requirements contained in 14 CFR part 91. 

parts 91, 121, 125, and 135 to retain any 

records on pilots employed in those 

operations.23 The FAA published a 

second InFO on March 13, 2014 (InFO 

14005), further reminding the regulated 

entities of their responsibility to retain 

pilot records dating back to August 1, 

2005.24 The FAA also issued a policy 

notice titled ‘‘Pilot Records Retention 

Responsibilities Related to the Airline 

Safety and Federal Aviation 

Administration Act of 2010.’’ The notice 

directed FAA inspectors to verify that 

air carriers or operators have a system 

in place to retain records that the statute 

requires such entities to include in the 

database.25

The PRD Act directed the FAA to 

submit a statement to Congress by 

February 2012, and at least once every 

three years thereafter, indicating 

completion of a periodic review of the 

statutory requirements. The statement to 

Congress must contain FAA 

recommendations to change the records 

required to be included in the database 

or explain why the FAA does not 

recommend changes to the records 

referenced in Section 203. In its most 

recent report to Congress, in February 

2018, the FAA indicated that it did not 

recommend any changes until it 

considers public comments on the PRD 

rulemaking proposal. The FAA expects 

to provide the next report by February 

2021. 

IV. Comments Regarding General 

Issues, Applicability, Pilot Privacy, and 

the Transition From PRIA 

The Pilot Records Database NPRM 

published on March 30, 2020 and the 

comment period closed June 29, 2020. 

Approximately 800 comments were 

posted to the docket, many of which 

were form letters submitted by National 

Business Aviation Association (NBAA) 

members. 

Generally, the Families of Continental 

Flight 3407 26 and others supported the 

rule. Many commenters, particularly 

part 91 operators 27 and aviation 

industry organizations, opposed the 

proposed rule. Commenters stated that 

not all covered records should apply to 

some types of operators, such as 

corporate operators and operators 

conducting public aircraft operations 

(PAO). They asserted that requiring 

such operators to include all record 

types would cause undue burden and 

would offer limited value, as the career 

path from part 91 operations to 

operations involving common carriage 

is less common. Commenters were also 

concerned about the user fee, 

particularly as it applied to small 

operators, and noted that they 

anticipated higher costs for 

recordkeeping than the estimated costs 

presented by the FAA. Commenters also 

requested a longer compliance period to 

transition from PRIA to PRD. 

Commenters expressed concern about 

pilots’ privacy and objected to the 

inclusion of check pilot comments in 

the PRD. Commenters further objected 

to the inclusion of historical records and 

the method for record reporting. 

A. General Support or Opposition 

1. Summary of Comments 

Most comments that generally agreed 

with the proposed rule were submitted 

by the Families of Continental Flight 

3407. These commenters supported the 

creation of the PRD on the grounds that 

it would prevent accidents such as crash 

of Colgan Flight 3407. Most of these 

commenters stated the crash was largely 

due to pilot error and that the PRD 

would have provided better review and 

scrutiny of pilot records, which could 

have prevented the accident. 

The other commenters that generally 

supported the proposed rule, including 

the NTSB, the Regional Airline 

Association (RAA), Small UAV 

Coalition, and the National Air Disaster 

Foundation, did so on the basis that 

centralizing records in an electronic 

database would create a broad source of 

records available in a standardized 

format in one location. This 

centralization would limit the 

possibility that operators would 

overlook records, provide a seamless 

process of reviewing pilot records, aid 

operators in hiring the highest quality 

pilots, and improve transparency while 

still protecting the privacy of pilots’ 

records. One individual stated the 

proposed rule has some positive aspects 

for part 135 operators, especially in 

obtaining timely PRIA documents about 

a prospective crewmember’s 

employment history, but believed the 

costs outweigh the benefits. This 

commenter indicated complying with 

the proposed rule would require hiring 

additional personnel. 

Commenters who generally disagreed 

with the proposed rule stated the PRD 

would not be useful, would impose an 

unfair burden on affected operators or 

pilots or would be intrusive and violate 

pilot privacy. Commenters also stated 

that the PRD would be open to abuse 

and false reporting by employers, or 

would penalize pilots unfairly who do 

not train well or do not perform well in 

the culture of a particular airline. 

Others, including a flight department 

leader, stated the provisions are 

unnecessary because airline and charter 

organizations can change their internal 

hiring processes to assess the candidate 

without needing to leverage a 

standardized process for review of 

records. The FL Aviation Corp. and 

another individual commented that the 

NPRM provided no data concerning 

accidents or incidents that justify the 

change to the PRD or the requirements 

for inclusion of additional records and 

recordkeeping. The Coalition of Airline 

Pilots Associations (CAPA) urged the 

FAA to establish protocols to prevent 

U.S. candidates from being placed at a 

hiring disadvantage when competing for 

jobs among foreign applicants whose 

training data may be unverifiable. 

Three commenters, including NBAA 

and CAPA, expressed concern that the 

proposed rule differs significantly from 

the consensus recommendations of the 

2011 PRD Aviation Rulemaking 

Committee (ARC). CAPA recommended 

the FAA reconsider the ARC’s 

recommendations, in addition to 

reviewing the public comments. 

2. FAA Response 

The FAA carefully reviewed all 

comments received in response to the 

NPRM and made several changes to the 

rule to ensure that it achieves the safety 

goals of the FAA and fully implements 

the statutory requirements set forth by 

Congress. As noted in the NPRM, 

industry, including part 91 operators, 

currently is subject to the requirements 

of PRIA. Although the implementation 

of the PRD changes the nature of 

industry participation in record-sharing, 

issues such as pilot privacy, abuse, false 

reporting, and penalization of pilots 

who do not perform well exist under 

PRIA, as well. In enacting the PRD Act, 

Congress directed the FAA to include 

safeguards in the PRD for pilot privacy 

and related concerns. The FAA 

discussed these proposed safeguards in 

the NPRM and adopts them, as 

appropriate, in this final rule. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31013 

28 James Higgins, et al., ‘‘An Investigation of the 

United States Pilot Labor Supply,’’ University of 

North Dakota (2013); and Michael McGee, ‘‘Air 

Transport Pilot Supply and Demand—Current State 

and Effects of Recent Legislation,’’ The RAND 

Corporation (2015). 

29 InFO 11014, described in Section III.B., 

published on August 11, 2015 and provided 

Continued 

The FAA carefully considered the 

input provided by the ARC. The FAA 

has already adopted many of its 

recommendations in the design and 

implementation of the PRD. While the 

FAA does not currently plan to 

implement all recommendations as 

described in the report, the ARC 

assisted the FAA in formulating the 

design of the PRD. This design is the 

result of careful consideration of the 

requirements, as outlined in the statute, 

the FAA’s operational capabilities, and 

the effects on and benefits to industry. 

The FAA is mindful of all comments 

concerning costs of compliance with 

this rule. The Regulatory Impact 

Assessment (RIA), which is available in 

the docket for this rulemaking, accounts 

for all costs incurred by entities. Section 

VI.A of this rule also includes a 

discussion of the costs. 

B. Applicability of the Rule 

As discussed further in Section 

V.A.1., under the NPRM, part 111 

applies to operators and would require 

them to report information to the FAA 

for inclusion in the PRD. Specifically, 

the FAA proposed to include pilot 

records from certain operations 

occurring under part 91, such as public 

aircraft operations, air tour operators 

operating in accordance with § 91.147, 

and corporate flight departments. 

The FAA received comments related 

to the applicability of the proposed rule 

from the General Aviation 

Manufacturers Association (GAMA), the 

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association 

(AOPA), NBAA, the U.S. Marshals 

Service Justice Prisoner and Alien 

Transportation System (JPATS), NASA’s 

Aircraft Management Division, 

PlaneSense, Inc., Dassault Aviation, and 

several individual commenters, 

approximately 500 of whom were using 

a form letter provided by NBAA. Many 

commenters and the majority of 

individuals opposed applying the 

proposed requirements to part 91 

operators. Some commenters, including 

NASA’s Aircraft Management Division 

and JPATS, opposed the application of 

the proposed rule to PAO. 

1. Comments Received on the Inclusion 

and Definition of Corporate Flight 

Departments and Other Part 91 

Operators 

GAMA, NTSB, NBAA, AOPA, Koch 

Industries, operators, and individual 

commenters addressed the proposal to 

require all corporate flight departments 

to enter data on pilot performance into 

the PRD. Many of these commenters 

indicated that the proposal would 

impose unreasonably burdensome 

recordkeeping requirements on 

corporate flight departments, which 

ultimately would benefit operators but 

would not increase the safety of 

corporate flight department operations. 

Several commenters asserted that 

Congress did not intend to impose these 

requirements on corporate flight 

departments and the proposal was FAA 

overreach. Many commenters noted that 

their corporate flight departments are 

small operations; as a result, some 

suggested they would need to add staff 

and modify their information 

technology systems to comply with the 

proposed requirements. 

Several commenters objected to the 

definition of ‘‘corporate flight 

departments’’ in the NPRM, arguing that 

the FAA is creating a new category of 

operator, and that this is inconsistent 

with established categories of operations 

under parts 91, 121, and 135. GAMA, 

NBAA and its form letter campaign, 

AOPA, and the PlaneSense form letter 

campaign asserted that no basis exists in 

the PRD Act to establish such a 

definition and that it would add 

complexity and confusion. GAMA noted 

the proposed definition would require 

aircraft operators to first determine their 

status based on the definition and then 

add the new burden and cost of 

compiling, maintaining, and reporting 

pilot records. GAMA expressed concern 

that the proposed rule would expose 

operators to the possibility of 

enforcement action in the event the 

FAA disagrees with an operator’s 

interpretation of the rule and the 

operator’s subsequent actions. 

GAMA, AOPA, and individual 

commenters asserted that the FAA 

assumes erroneously that part 91 

corporate aviation commonly serves as 

a ‘‘pipeline’’ or ‘‘gateway’’ to 

employment with part 121 and part 135 

operators. GAMA stated that studies 

show corporate flight departments are 

not gateway employers like flight 

schools with bridge agreements, 

operators under parts 91 subpart K and 

135, and the U.S. military. Instead, 

GAMA stated that the most common 

path to part 121 air carrier employment 

starts at a flight school. GAMA 

identified the primary sources of airline 

hiring as part 141 and part 61 flight 

schools with bridge agreements, parts 

135 and part 91(k) operators, and the 

U.S. military.28 CAPA stated those 

gateway jobs are ever-changing and that 

although it is not unreasonable to 

require a certificate holder to keep pilot 

records, trying to take this snapshot in 

time of what might be a gateway job 

could lead to future loopholes. 

NBAA stated that business aviation 

represents a diverse group of aircraft 

operators ranging from single-pilot, 

owner-operated single aircraft to multiaircraft operators with a mix of fixedwing and rotor-wing aircraft. Therefore, 

according to NBAA, a single, codified 

definition will not adequately address 

the diversity of the industry. NBAA 

recommended the FAA remove any 

provisions that impose additional 

recordkeeping requirements that would 

apply to corporate flight departments 

and § 91.147 operators, as recommended 

by the ARC. NBAA also objected to the 

FAA basing the definition of corporate 

flight departments on the number of 

aircraft a department operates, as doing 

so could deter operators from 

purchasing aircraft. 

NBAA urged the FAA to limit the 

scope of the proposed rule to operators 

with the most significant public interest, 

such as those that conduct common 

carriage, and to facilitate the continued 

use of PRIA feedback for part 91 

operators. NBAA noted its member 

survey data suggests that, on average, 

part 91 operators within FAA’s 

proposed definition of a corporate flight 

department receive less than one PRIA 

request every two-and-a-half years. 

NBAA and other commenters stated 

that part 91 business operators— 

particularly those the FAA proposed to 

include in part 111—have excellent 

safety records, and the FAA’s proposal 

and regulatory evaluation fail to 

articulate any quantifiable safety value 

for subjecting part 91 operators to the 

requirements of the proposed rule. 

NBAA further stated that NBAA 

members, such as certificate holders 

operating under part 135, are already 

subject to PRIA requirements and report 

that PRIA results play a greater role in 

validating existing pilot hiring decisions 

than in considering whom to hire. 

NBAA also pointed out that including 

certain part 91 operators exceeds the 

NTSB’s recommendation, which only 

cites the need for parts 121 and 135 

operators to share pilot information. 

NBAA recommended the FAA remove 

part 91 operators from the proposed 

rule, on the view that records provided 

by part 91 operators would provide 

minimal safety benefit to part 121 and 

part 135 operators in their hiring 

process. 

An individual asserted that while 

InFO 11014 29 refers to part 91, 121 and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
31014 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

information about future PRD compliance to air 

carriers and operators. 

30 85 FR at 17671 (requesting answers to whether 

it would be beneficial to require corporate flight 

departments operating a single aircraft to report to 

PRD; whether such flight departments already 

maintain substantive records that include certain 

types of information; and whether the proposed 

rule would create a disincentive for such 

departments to create and retain records not already 

required). 

135 records, the regulations cited are for 

parts 121, 125, and 135 only. The 

commenter stated no regulation requires 

part 91 operators to maintain records 

other than to show proficiency. The 

commenter further stated the InFO does 

not address part 91 record retention. 

Other commenters stated that the 

FAA does not have statutory authority 

to impose the proposed recordkeeping 

requirements on part 91 operators. 

PlaneSense and the commenters that 

submitted comments as part of the 

PlaneSense form letter campaign (the 

PlaneSense commenters) asserted that 

the PRD Act identifies air carriers and 

‘‘other persons’’ as having obligations 

under the Act, but specifically identifies 

the applicable pilot records to which the 

PRD Act applies as those kept pursuant 

to part 121, part 125, or part 135. Citing 

49 U.S.C. 44703(h) and 44703(i), these 

commenters argued that the PRD Act 

does not include pilot records of 

operators whose flights are operated 

under part 91 or subpart k of part 91. 

The PlaneSense commenters also 

contended that no statutory authority 

exists in either section 44703(h) or 

44703(i) that imposes an obligation on 

any operator conducting operations 

under part 91. They asserted that the 

FAA is overstepping its authority by 

interpreting the definition of ‘‘person’’ 

in the PRD Act to include 

noncommercial operators that the 

statute does not identify specifically. 

These commenters urged the FAA to 

remove references to fractional 

operators and corporate flight 

departments from the rule. 

An air tour operator opined that the 

proposal would burden part 91 

operators far beyond the intent of 

Congress by requiring frequent reporting 

by that group. Several commenters 

noted that corporate flight departments 

vary widely in the volume and nature of 

records retained. GAMA and other 

commenters suggested that the proposal 

would discourage corporate flight 

departments from creating and retaining 

records not otherwise mandated by 

regulation and may also discourage 

participation in voluntary safety 

programs and optional formal training. 

One individual suggested that while 

Congress and the FAA included 

indemnity clauses, they are not robust 

enough to prevent civil defamation 

actions. 

Dassault Aviation asked the FAA to 

confirm that the proposed requirements 

for corporate flight departments are not 

applicable to original equipment 

manufacturer (OEM) demonstration and 

OEM production or experimental flight 

departments because they do not 

operate ‘‘a fleet of two or more standard 

airworthiness airplanes.’’ 

In the preamble to the proposed rule, 

the FAA asked commenters to respond 

to three questions regarding corporate 

flight departments’ safety practices.30

GAMA and four individual commenters 

provided responses. These commenters 

generally agreed it would not be 

beneficial to require corporate flight 

departments operating a single aircraft 

to report to the PRD because, in the case 

of owners operating their own aircraft, 

they would be reporting on themselves. 

GAMA asserted the Agency failed to 

‘‘adequately address the scope of 

operations conducted under part 91, 

especially by owner-operators who use 

their aircraft for a variety of purposes 

and will likely never employ pilots.’’ An 

individual commenter noted it would be 

impossible for corporate flight 

departments operating a single aircraft 

to comply with the proposed 

requirements because every private 

aircraft owner would have to report on 

every pilot they employ or contract with 

regardless of how short the term. 

Another individual asked how the FAA 

would know all corporate flight 

departments are reporting to the PRD, as 

required. 

In response to questions about the 

records corporate flight departments 

maintain, GAMA indicated many large 

corporate flight departments maintain 

records documenting pilot training, 

evaluation, performance, disciplinary 

actions, or release from employment or 

other professional disqualification. 

GAMA also noted that pilots of many 

corporate flight departments have 

responsibilities in addition to operating 

aircraft, so employment records may 

also contain much information that is 

not relevant to performance as a pilot 

and the pilot-related data is likely to 

exist in a form that differs from the 

record elements the PRD intends to 

include. 

JPATS, NASA’s Aircraft Management 

Division, and individuals opposed the 

application of the proposed rule to PAO. 

Noting that the proposed rule would not 

apply to ‘‘[a]ny branch of the United 

States Armed Forces, National Guard, or 

reserve component of the Armed 

Forces,’’ JPATS said that Federal flight 

departments should be treated the same, 

unless the department maintains an 

FAA certificate, such as an air carrier or 

commercial operating certificate. NASA 

opposed placing pilot record reporting 

requirements on Federal Government 

PAO. Individual commenters also 

recommended the FAA exempt PAO 

from the proposed rule. One such 

commenter stated the proposed rule 

does not consider that pilots from the 

Department of Justice (FBI, DEA, U.S. 

Marshals) and the Department of 

Homeland Security (Air and Marine 

Operations, United States Coast Guard) 

can be targeted for retaliation for 

performing their duties. 

In contrast to the comments discussed 

above, NTSB and an individual 

commenter expressed support for the 

inclusion of part 91 operators in the 

proposed rule. The individual 

commenter said that, as an employer of 

pilots for part 135 operations, it finds 

the current process to be flawed and 

time-consuming with respect to 

obtaining records from part 91 

operators. The NTSB agreed that part 91 

operators often serve as ‘‘gateway 

operators’’ for air carrier pilots. 

2. FAA Response 

The FAA carefully evaluated all 

comments received regarding the 

applicability of each proposed 

requirement. Upon consideration, the 

FAA determined that in light of the 

information and data provided by 

commenters, some requirements of the 

proposed rule were overly burdensome 

for certain types of operators. This rule 

reduces the reporting burden for certain 

operators conducting operations 

without a part 119 certificate, in that 

they are not required to report specific 

types of records unless and until 

requested. Such operators include 

public aircraft operations, air tour 

operations, and corporate flight 

departments, referred to in this section 

as the ‘‘PAC’’ group. This approach 

addresses many of the issues raised by 

commenters with respect to the burden 

on part 91 operators. Under the final 

rule, a reviewing entity will have access 

to a pilot’s records as needed, but that 

the reporting requirement for the PAC 

group scales according to the volume of 

requests. 

Commenters stated that many pilots 

employed by PAC operators do not 

switch employers often and NBAA 

noted that some operators only receive 

a single PRIA request every two-and-ahalf years. Accordingly, the FAA 

determined the most effective way to 

ensure review of a pilot’s records by a 

potential employer, while reducing 

extraneous records loaded by the PAC 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31015 

31Operators subject to 14 CFR part 120 must enter 

all drug and alcohol records into the database in 

accordance with the timelines and requirements 

included in § 111.220. 32 49 U.S.C. 44703(i)(2)(B) (emphasis added). 33 Id. 

34 49 U.S.C. 44703(h)(1)(B) (excluding, among 

other things, records from ‘‘a branch of the United 

States Armed Forces’’). 

group, is to require that group to enter 

only records that may be of particular 

concern to a hiring employer. Section 

V.C.4 of this rule contains a detailed 

discussion of this new method of 

reporting. This rule requires these PAC 

operators to enter certain records 

contemporaneous with the occurrence 

of a particular event or receipt of a 

record; this framework will reduce risk 

associated with a pilot error or omission 

with respect to that pilot’s employment 

history. Section V.D.3 provides a 

description of this requirement. This 

rule will require the PAC operators to 

report all other records unless and until 

requested, with the exception of an air 

tour operator’s drug and alcohol testing 

records.31

The FAA is mindful of the comments 

recommending exclusion of public 

aircraft operations from the PRD. The 

FAA, however, does not have discretion 

to completely exclude this group from 

the PRD requirements. The PRD Act 

requires the inclusion of records from 

‘‘other person[s] [. . .] that ha[ve] 

employed an individual as a pilot of a 

civil or public aircraft.’’ 32 The FAA 

notes that the PRD Act specifically 

excludes records from the branches of 

the ‘‘Armed Forces, the National Guard, 

or a reserve component of the Armed 

Forces,’’ 33 which would be public 

aircraft operations under 49 U.S.C. 

40102. The exclusion of records from 

this narrow group of public aircraft 

operators, combined with the statutory 

language generally including 

individuals who are employed as pilots 

of public aircraft, indicates that the 

statute includes other (non-statutorily 

excluded) entities that conduct public 

aircraft operations. 

Permitting the PAC group to report 

certain records only upon request is 

consistent with the FAA’s framework 

for risk-based decision-making. 

Operators under part 119 are subject to 

robust requirements, concomitant with 

assuring the safety of the traveling 

public; in contrast, operators in the PAC 

group conduct operations that are 

subject to less FAA oversight and 

generally present a lower level of risk, 

due to reduced volume and frequency. 

The FAA anticipates a modest number 

of pilots will transition from the PAC 

group to reviewing entities. Given the 

considerations noted above, this method 

of reporting-upon-request available for 

PAC entities is consistent with the PRD 

Act and is scalable with the level of risk 

of these types of operations. These 

operators currently respond to requests 

under PRIA. Excluding these operators 

from the applicability of the PRD 

entirely would not serve the FAA’s 

safety mission; overall, this final rule 

requires an appropriate level of 

engagement from certain part 91 

operators. 

The FAA also received many 

comments concerning the proposed 

definition of corporate flight 

department. The FAA proposed to 

define corporate flight departments as 

operators conducting operations under 

part 91 with two or more standard 

airworthiness airplanes that require a 

type rating under § 61.31(a), in 

furtherance of, or incidental to, a 

business, or operators holding a letter of 

deviation authority under § 125.3. This 

rule removes the proposed definition 

from § 111.10 but instead includes the 

criteria in the applicability section of 

the rule. The criteria are also amended 

to include rotorcraft, which is described 

in detail in Section V.A.1. The FAA 

selected two aircraft because operators 

utilizing multiple aircraft tend to have 

more pilots, as described in the NPRM. 

Additionally, this rule will not require 

single-aircraft corporate flight 

departments conducting operations 

exclusively under part 91 to upload 

records to the PRD because, as 

mentioned by commenters, such 

operators often include only the single 

pilot conducting operations on behalf of 

the operator, who may be the same 

person. Setting the threshold at multiple 

aircraft better tailors this rule to apply 

to entities that may have applicable 

records. 

In response to comments regarding 

whether an OEM’s operations fall 

within the definition of a corporate 

flight department, the FAA reiterates 

that if the operations fall into the 

applicability criteria as adopted, part 

111 would apply to that entity. Each 

manufacturer should remain aware of 

the applicability criteria and assess 

whether it meets the criteria for 

applicability. 

3. Comments Regarding Other Types of 

Operators 

Commenters also provided input 

concerning other types of entities, such 

as pilot schools and operators that are 

excluded from the applicability of part 

119. Several commenters, including 

Koch Industries, CAE, and CAPA, asked 

why part 141 and part 142 schools are 

not required to report, and suggested 

that those entities should provide data 

instead of operators. 

CAPA also stated that applicability 

should extend to the U.S. military. RAA 

supported gathering data from part 133 

and part 137 operations, while the 

National Agricultural Aviation 

Association (NAAA) agreed with FAA’s 

decision not to require reporting from 

part 137 agricultural operators. NAAA 

stated that part 137 operators are not 

‘‘gateway operators’’ for air carriers. 

Commenters also responded to the 

FAA’s request for comment regarding 

whether data from excluded entities 

would provide information relevant to 

the evaluation of a pilot candidate for 

employment. Airlines for America 

(A4A) stated it does not believe data 

from excluded entities would provide 

information relevant to the evaluation of 

a pilot candidate seeking employment. 

A4A recommended that the FAA focus 

on ensuring the PRD is successful by 

providing technical requirements and 

engaging with regulated entities before 

expanding the PRD to other entities. 

Ameristar Air Cargo, Inc. (Ameristar) 

asserted it would be unlikely that PRIA 

requests will be honored by foreign 

carriers without a treaty or bilateral 

agreement with ICAO member 

countries. 

The Small UAV Coalition commented 

that the proposed rule is another 

regulation that applies to UAS air 

carriers only because a more suitable 

regulatory scheme addressing such 

operations does not exist. The Coalition 

stated that a set of comprehensive laws 

and regulations specific to UAS 

operations would help resolve the 

regulatory compliance burden that UAS 

operators face when seeking to conduct 

commercial business under existing 

regulatory schemes. The Coalition did 

not suggest that the overarching safety 

purposes of the PRD are inapplicable to 

commercial UAS operations, but stated 

that commercial UAS operations merit a 

realistic and tailored approach to record 

retention and review that is an integral 

part of a comprehensive rule on UAS air 

carriers. The Coalition urged the FAA to 

begin rulemaking to update air carrier 

operating rules for UAS air carriers. 

4. FAA Response 

The plain language of the statute only 

permits the FAA to require employers of 

pilots to report records. The Armed 

Forces are excluded by the plain 

language of the statute.34 Similarly, 

training centers subject to 14 CFR part 

141 or part 142 training centers would 

not be able to report records regarding 

pilots who received training at those 

centers, as individuals employed as 

flight instructors to provide flight 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
31016 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

35A PIA describes a process used to evaluate the 

collection of personal data in information systems. 

The objective of a PIA is to determine if collected 

personal information data is necessary and relevant. 

36The NPRM proposed to exclude records 

contained in the PRD from FOIA in accordance 

with the PRD Act, subject to certain exceptions. 

training are not employed for purposes 

of operating an aircraft. Therefore, the 

FAA did not propose to require 

compliance with part 111 by part 61 or 

part 141 pilot schools or part 142 

training centers with part 111. The FAA 

also considered comments regarding the 

applicability of part 111 to operators 

conducting operations under part 133 

(Rotorcraft External-Load Operations) or 

part 137 (Agricultural Aircraft 

Operations). This final rule maintains 

the proposed exclusion of those 

operations, for the reasons discussed in 

the NPRM. Primarily, the FAA 

determined that those operators would 

not be likely to generate records that 

would be useful to a reviewing entity 

and that pilots employed by those 

operators will generally be employed by 

another type of operator that would be 

a reporting entity before attempting to 

find employment in service of a 

reviewing entity like an air carrier. 

As discussed in the NPRM and 

adopted in this final rule, the PRD Act 

is not applicable to foreign operators. 

Furthermore, the FAA does not have the 

technical capacity to accommodate 

reporting from non-U.S. operators. The 

FAA does not expect such entities to 

include any records in the PRD; 

however, reviewing entities are free to 

seek out information from any other 

previous employer for whom the pilot 

worked in addition to accessing the 

pilot’s PRD record. 

As explained in the NPRM, the PRD 

Act requires all operators to request and 

review records prior to allowing an 

individual to begin service as a pilot. As 

a result, the Act’s requirements apply to 

pilots of UAS when those UAS are used 

in air carrier operations. This 

rulemaking is limited to addressing the 

statutory mandate of the PRD Act; as a 

result, comments urging the FAA to 

initiate separate rulemakings are outside 

the scope of this rulemaking. 

C. Pilot Privacy 

The PRD Act requires the FAA to 

promulgate regulations to protect and 

secure the personal privacy of any 

individual whose records are accessed 

in the new electronic database; to 

protect and secure the confidentiality of 

those records; and to prevent further 

dissemination of those records once 

accessed by an operator. 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to 

mitigate risks to privacy by adopting 

strict privacy standards and establishing 

limits on access to the contents of the 

PRD. Specifically, the FAA will adhere 

to National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST) Special Publication 

800.53 Security and Privacy Controls for 

Federal Information Systems and 

Organizations to secure information 

contained in the PRD. 

1. Summary of Comments 

Approximately 24 commenters, 

including A4A, the Cargo Airline 

Association (CAA), NBAA, and 

Cummins, Inc., expressed concerns 

related to privacy issues. A4A 

commented that notice of a pilot’s death 

should be supported by a certified copy 

of a death notice from any source, not 

just from next of kin, in order to avoid 

overburdening the database with 

extraneous information and increasing 

the risk of privacy issues. Commenters 

remarked on the importance of keeping 

pilot records confidential and only 

maintaining sensitive pilot information 

related to termination of employment or 

unsatisfactory completion of airman 

flight checks, and expressed concern 

about the data security. Commenters 

recommended that pilots have control 

over who can access their records and 

asked whether pilots will have an 

opportunity to direct how the PRD will 

share their information. 

Commenters opposed the PRD on 

privacy grounds, stating that these pilots 

never signed up to have this information 

shared. Several commenters opposed 

including non-performance and nonaviation related disciplinary records. 

Cummins Inc. also asked who inside the 

FAA would have access to the database 

and who outside the FAA would have 

access to the database and nonanonymized data. NBAA commented 

that the information contained in the 

PRD should only be available to 

qualifying employers for the purpose of 

evaluating a pilot-applicant. 

The A4A and CAA called for the FAA 

to issue a Privacy Impact Assessment 

(PIA) 35 related to the PRD. The 

commenters stated a PIA is needed to 

address security and privacy risks of the 

PRD, given that the PRD will collect, 

access, use, and permit dissemination to 

prospective employers of pilot records. 

These commenters requested the FAA 

address issues such as the time the FAA 

expects for it to approve access to users, 

the training required of users, and 

applicable parameters that will ensure 

privacy. 

The FAA also received comments on 

keeping records for the life of the pilot. 

Ameristar commented that if the FAA 

determines that any record should be 

expunged, the Agency should not 

maintain that record and referenced 49 

U.S.C. 44703(i)(2)(A)(iii), which states 

that the FAA should not include records 

subsequently overturned. The 

commenter said that expungement and 

‘‘overturned’’ as used in the PRD Act 

could mean the same thing, and that 

adding definitions of these terms would 

provide some clarity as to the treatment 

of the records. Ameristar commented 

that these records should not be 

maintained nor made available upon 

PRD request. 

The PlaneSense commenters stated 

they generally agreed with a dissent to 

the PRD ARC recommendation, which 

said that the FAA should remove and 

store, for an undefined period of time, 

deceased pilots’ records from the PRD 

for security purposes or assistance with 

an investigation. 

CAPA disagreed with the requirement 

for retention of pilot records for the life 

of the pilot. The commenter stated that 

no data supports that information from 

an event that may have occurred years 

ago has any bearing upon a pilot’s 

current or future performance. The FL 

Aviation Corp. commented that a 

request for a lifetime of records is itself 

onerous and far-reaching and could 

cause spillover by forcing the purchase 

or update of additional programs to 

retain additional data. 

An individual commenter expressed 

concern about ‘‘the code quality of the 

page where people register to use the 

Pilot Records Database,’’ and stated the 

DOT sign-up pages for MyAccess should 

not be used because of poor quality and 

security concerns. This commenter also 

stated that the system should undergo a 

third party review. 

A4A recommended the FAA clarify 

that information in the PRD may be 

shared with NTSB officials when 

investigating an accident or incident; 

however, all other protection provided 

in the NPRM should continue to 

apply.36

2. FAA Response 

The FAA reiterates that the pilot is 

the only person with control over which 

external entities view that pilot’s 

records in the PRD. A pilot must 

provide specific, time-limited consent to 

a reviewing entity before that entity is 

permitted to view a pilot’s records. A 

reviewing entity can only query the PRD 

for records of pilots who have 

specifically granted consent to that 

operator. After the pilot grants consent 

for access to the records, the pilot must 

also provide the reviewing entity with 

the pilot’s name and pilot certificate 

number before the entity can review the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31017 

37A copy of FAA Form 8060–14 has been placed 

in the docket. 

38 49 U.S.C. 44703(k). 

39U.S. Department of Transportation Privacy 

Impact Assessment, May 31, 2017, https://

www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/ 

resources/individuals/privacy/282206/faamyaccess-pia-05312017.pdf. 

records. The FAA is obligated to ensure 

that only information that is relevant to 

a hiring employer’s review of a potential 

employee is housed in the system. 

Limiting the data elements available to 

hiring employers is critical because the 

PRD Act requires the FAA to ensure 

pilot privacy is protected. 

Additionally, the pilot can withdraw 

consent at any time for PRD Airman 

Records (PARs). Records associated 

with a pilot are only released to an 

operator (a reviewing entity) after the 

pilot has created a PAR and consented 

to release of that specific PAR to that 

specific operator. When a pilot provides 

consent in these cases, the PAR is only 

available for a limited period of time, as 

selected by the pilot. Each PAR is a 

‘‘snapshot’’ of the records as they 

existed at that moment when the PAR 

is generated and will not change even if 

the records in the original data source 

change. This ensures that the pilot 

knows exactly what is being displayed 

to the reviewing entity. When new 

records are added to the PRD and the 

pilot wants the PAR to encompass those 

records, the pilot must grant an updated 

consent to release the updated PAR, 

which will then replace the previous 

PAR. For this reason, while PARs can be 

available for up to 60 days, reviewing 

entities may prefer that a PAR be 

released to them more recently to ensure 

the PAR reflects the most recent 

information available. In addition to 

PARs only being available for a limited 

time period, the pilot can also revoke 

access to a PAR at any time. 

Reviewing entities that wish to review 

a PAR must also have the pilot’s name 

and certificate number to retrieve the 

PAR. Even if a pilot has granted consent 

to the PAR, an operator will not be able 

to search for all available PARs without 

having the name and certificate number 

related to the PAR for which the entity 

is searching. The pilot will likely 

provide the pilot’s name and certificate 

number to the hiring operator as part of 

the vetting process. If the operator 

attempts to search for a PAR, but the 

pilot has not yet granted consent to view 

the PAR, the PRD will report that no 

PARs were found for that pilot. 

Other than when a PAR has been 

created and specific consent has been 

provided to a reviewing entity to view 

that PAR, records within the PRD are 

only accessible to the record owner. As 

previously described, the record owner 

is normally the same entity which 

created the record; however, ownership 

can change in some circumstances. An 

operator that has entered records into 

the PRD can always view, edit, or 

remove those records later, as 

appropriate, as long as it continues to be 

the record owner. 

The PRD administrator will have the 

ability to view a pilot’s records within 

the PRD for the limited purpose of 

supporting a pilot’s request to release 

those records to a reviewing entity. This 

process is only used if the pilot cannot 

access the PRD system and specifically 

requests the FAA release a PAR to a 

reviewing entity. This will occur when 

the pilot submits a completed and 

signed FAA Form 8060–14 to the FAA 

for processing. 

Although the PRD administrator can 

view the records in the PRD associated 

with a pilot, the FAA does not access 

this information for any other purpose 

than to support a pilot’s request to 

review that pilot’s own information, 

made via FAA Form 8060–14,37 and for 

other administrative purposes. With 

limited exception, the FAA will not be 

reviewing records in the PRD to search 

for instances of non-compliance with 

FAA regulations. The only circumstance 

in which the FAA would use records in 

the PRD in an FAA enforcement action 

would be in cases involving suspected 

non-compliance with Part 111. Records 

contained in the PRD could be used to 

prove instances of non-compliance with 

the PRD reporting requirements or the 

absence of records could be an indicator 

of non-compliance. In any event, the 

statutory exclusion of these records 

from release in response to a Freedom 

of Information Act request applies, with 

the exceptions listed in the PRD Act. 

The FAA is permitted to release records 

to NTSB officials when investigating an 

accident or incident.38

The PRD Act requires the FAA to 

maintain records in the PRD for the life 

of the pilot and does not provide the 

FAA with discretion to expunge records 

outside of that timeframe. The FAA 

acknowledges that there is no research 

indicating that maintaining records for 

the lifetime of a pilot imbues greater 

safety benefits than a more time-limited 

lookback such as what was required 

under PRIA. Expunction of a record is 

not the same as a record being 

overturned. For enforcement records, an 

action under appeal subsequently might 

change the outcome of the initial 

enforcement action. This could result in 

the enforcement record being 

overturned and subsequently expunged. 

Expunction also would occur when a 

pilot reaches 99 years of age or upon the 

FAA receiving a notification of death. 

The FAA agrees with A4A that a 

notification of death need not be 

submitted only by next of kin. Upon 

further consideration, the information 

required to be submitted is sufficient to 

ensure authenticity of the 

documentation and there is no safety or 

security concern that warrants limiting 

who is permitted to submit such 

information. 

With respect to the comment 

concerning the design code of 

MyAccess, the FAA protects personal 

identifiable information (PII) with 

reasonable security safeguards against 

loss or unauthorized access, destruction, 

usage, modification, or disclosure. 

These safeguards incorporate standards 

and practices required for federal 

information systems under the Federal 

Information Security Management Act 

(FISMA) and are detailed in the Federal 

Information Processing Standards (FIPS) 

Publication 200, Minimum Security 

Requirements for Federal Information 

and Information Systems, and NIST 

Special Publication 800–53. Detailed 

information regarding the steps taken to 

safeguard information for MyAccess is 

available in the Privacy Impact 

Assessment for MyAccess.39 The FAA 

will publish an updated PIA for the PRD 

in the docket for this rulemaking, as 

referenced in Section VI.H., Privacy 

Analysis. 

D. Transition From PRIA to PRD 

The FAA proposed a transition 

timeline from PRIA to PRD. The FAA 

requested comments on whether the 

transition period should be shortened or 

extended and whether it would be 

helpful for the FAA to maintain a 

publicly available list of all operators 

that are fully compliant with the PRD 

requirements during the transition 

period. 

1. Summary of Comments 

Writing jointly, the Families of 

Continental Flight 3407 stated that the 

crash of that flight underscores the 

criticality and urgency of finalizing the 

rule. The families called on the FAA, 

the U.S. Department of Transportation, 

and the Office of Management and 

Budget to finalize the rule as 

expediently as possible, to ensure every 

operator has access to the most 

complete information possible in hiring 

pilots. The families also noted that 

nearly a decade has passed since 

Congress required the PRD in August 

2010. They further compared the 

current economic challenges the air 

carrier industry faces to challenges in 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
31018 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

the decade after September 11, 2001, 

which they state led to growth of 

regional airlines and cost-cutting 

measures that contributed to the 

preventable tragedy of Flight 3407. The 

group called on government and 

industry stakeholders to be cognizant of 

this history to ensure these mistakes are 

not repeated. 

The Regional Airline Association 

(RAA) and Atlas Air commented that, 

because it is difficult to predict the 

amount of time required for the transfer 

of data, the FAA might need to extend 

the transition period. The RAA 

recommended that during the transition 

period the FAA maintain a publicly 

available list of carriers and other 

operators that are fully compliant with 

the PRD ahead of schedule so that 

prospective employers can query the 

PRD directly. Atlas Air and A4A 

recommended similarly the FAA reevaluate the sunset of PRIA 

requirements at the end of the transition 

period and extend it if not all affected 

carriers are in compliance with the PRD 

historical records requirement. Atlas Air 

highlighted that the uncertainties of the 

coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID–19) 

public health emergency may impact 

carrier compliance. A4A also 

recommended extensive industry 

participation in a test pilot program. 

2. FAA Response 

The FAA acknowledges the wide 

range of comments received regarding 

the timing of the implementation of the 

PRD and the transition period between 

PRD and PRIA. The FAA agrees that 

expeditious implementation of the PRD 

is a top priority, but understands the 

potential technical challenges that could 

occur during the course of the 

transition. After consideration of 

comments on this topic, the FAA made 

changes to the compliance dates and 

added interim compliance markers to 

facilitate a smooth transition. These 

changes are discussed further in 

Sections V.A.2 and V.E. 

The interim compliance dates are for 

submission of the responsible person 

application, review of FAA records, 

review of industry records, reporting 

new records, and reporting historical 

records prior to the sunset of PRIA. This 

rule also provides the opportunity for 

certain operators to request a deviation 

in the event of unforeseen difficulties 

with the transfer of historical records. 

The PRD will also provide information 

regarding which employers have fully 

completed historical record upload for a 

particular pilot in order to eliminate any 

duplicative reporting during the 

transition period. The FAA intends to 

collaborate with industry by providing 

helpful information regarding the 

transition upon identification of 

responsible persons by each operator 

subject to this rule. 

V. Section-by-Section Discussion of 

Regulatory Text 

This section provides an explanation 

of substantive changes adopted in this 

final rule, as well as summaries of 

provision-specific comments and FAA 

responses. It should be noted that there 

are non-substantive revisions made 

throughout the regulatory text, such as 

section number changes or edits made 

for clarity and consistency. 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to 

include subpart E to facilitate the 

transition from PRIA to PRD. However, 

the FAA did not adopt a regulatory 

requirement for continued compliance 

with PRIA in this rule. Because PRIA 

continues to be self-implementing in 

statute until September 9, 2024, part 111 

does not need to include a regulatory 

requirement for continued compliance 

with PRIA. The FAA provides updated 

guidance in AC 120–68J with further 

information about continued 

compliance with PRIA as related to PRD 

compliance. The FAA includes sunset 

of PRIA in subpart A and requirements 

for reporting historical records in 

subpart C. 

A. Subpart A—General 

1. Applicability—Section 111.1 

The FAA proposed that part 111 

would generally be applicable to part 

119 certificate holders, fractional 

ownership programs, persons 

authorized to conduct air tour 

operations in accordance with § 91.147, 

persons operating a corporate flight 

department, governmental entities 

conducting public aircraft operations 

(PAO), as well as pilots with part 107 

remote pilot certificates operating a 

UAS for compensation or hire. 

Substantively, the FAA adopts § 111.1 

as proposed. After reviewing comments 

received on the applicability of the rule, 

discussed extensively in Section IV.B., 

the FAA acknowledges that pilots 

employed by the operators mentioned 

previously transition much less 

frequently than originally anticipated to 

employment with reviewing entities. 

This revised method of reporting is 

discussed in greater detail in Section 

V.C.4. Given that change, although the 

previously-mentioned entities are still 

subject to part 111, the burden imposed 

is proportionate to the level of risk 

mitigation necessary to fulfill the intent 

of the PRD Act. 

The FAA amends the regulatory text 

proposed originally in § 111.1 for 

consistency and to clarify which pilots 

are subject to the applicability of the 

PRD. The proposed text captured which 

certificates a pilot would typically hold 

in order to be subject to the PRD, but 

did not note that only pilots who are 

employed by or seeking employment 

with an entity subject to the 

applicability of this part would need 

access to the database. The final rule 

removes the reference to the specific 

certificates pilots hold, and instead 

includes a requirement that would 

apply to any pilot working for a 

reporting entity or seeking employment 

with a reviewing entity. 

The FAA also moved the applicability 

criteria for persons whom the FAA 

defined in the NPRM as ‘‘corporate 

flight departments’’ (referenced as such 

in this preamble) into § 111.1(b)(4). The 

FAA amends the criteria for a corporate 

flight department to include not only 

those who operate two or more type 

rated airplanes but also those who 

operate two or more turbine-powered 

rotorcraft, or any combination of two or 

more of those aircraft. By adding 

turbine-powered rotorcraft to this 

criteria, this rule applies to operators 

that operate more than one complex 

aircraft under part 91. After reviewing 

comments on corporate flight 

departments, as described in Section 

IV.B., the FAA determined the 

definition proposed in the NPRM 

inadvertently excluded turbine-powered 

rotorcraft operators. These turbinepowered rotorcraft operators generally 

utilize advanced aircraft under part 91; 

thus, their contributions to the PRD are 

as meaningful for safety as those 

operating type-rated airplanes. 

The FAA also adds applicability 

criteria for PAO, which references the 

statutory definition and criteria for PAO 

under 49 U.S.C. 40102 and 40125, but 

does not include operations conducted 

by any branch of the United States 

Armed Forces, National Guard, or 

reserve component of the Armed Forces. 

This applicability provision aligns 

directly with the PRD Act. 

The FAA also adopts regulatory text 

to provide criteria for when a trustee in 

bankruptcy must comply with the 

requirements of part 111, proposed 

originally in its own section in the 

NPRM. The FAA proposed that any 

operator subject to the applicability of 

part 111 that files a petition for 

bankruptcy would still be required to 

report records to the PRD. The FAA 

proposed that the trustee appointed by 

the bankruptcy court may act as the 

responsible person for reporting those 

records to the PRD. This section is 

adopted as proposed with nonsubstantive edits, one of which notes 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31019 

that a trustee must comply with the 

reporting requirements of subparts A 

and C of part 111. While the NPRM only 

listed subparts C and E, the terms of 

access in subpart A would also be 

applicable to a trustee. Sections V.A.3 

and V.C.11 contain summaries of, and 

responses to, comments about 

requirements related to a trustee in 

bankruptcy. 

Lastly, this rule contains a reference 

to 14 CFR part 375 (Navigation of 

Foreign Civil Aircraft within the United 

States), expressly to exclude foreign 

operators from the applicability of this 

rule. Although foreign operators are 

regulated by 14 CFR part 375, as 

discussed in the NPRM, Congress did 

not include those operators in the PRD 

Act. 

2. Compliance Dates—Section 111.5 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed 

compliance with part 111 by two years 

and 90 days after publication of the final 

rule. The FAA revises the proposed 

compliance dates in this final rule. The 

compliance dates specific to each 

section or subpart were moved to the 

applicable section or subpart for clarity. 

Section 111.5 provides the final date by 

which full compliance with the 

provisions of part 111 is required. 

The FAA considered comments on 

the transition from PRIA to PRD, further 

discussed in Section IV.D., and how to 

facilitate a smooth transition to full 

compliance with the PRD for both 

industry and the FAA. Upon 

consideration, the FAA determined that 

it would not negatively affect safety to 

extend the final date of compliance, 

primarily because the final rule adopts 

interim compliance dates set between 

publication and September 9, 2024, to 

ensure persons subject to the rule begin 

using the PRD before the final 

compliance date. The compliance 

period is longer than originally 

proposed, but also begins with specific 

steps towards compliance earlier than 

originally proposed. As a result of the 

revised compliance dates, industry 

would begin reporting new records and 

historical records dated on or after 

January 1, 2015 one year after 

publication of the final rule. The extra 

year granted for extended compliance 

serves to provide a full two years of 

transition time for upload of historical 

records. 

The FAA’s primary objective in 

adopting this final rule with interim 

compliance dates is to be able to start 

extensive and necessary collaboration 

with industry to populate the PRD with 

the highest quality data. Additionally, 

the FAA is extending the compliance 

timeline because the FAA is developing 

a method of electronic transfer to 

facilitate reporting of large amounts of 

historical records simultaneously. This 

will ease the process of reporting 

historical records for operators reporting 

records from 2005 and 2010, 

respectively. The FAA is committed to 

working with industry to enable a 

smooth transition from PRIA to PRD and 

desires the least burdensome process 

possible for record transfer. If the FAA 

is not able to provide a method of 

electronic transfer prior to the final 

compliance deadline, the FAA will 

consider extending the compliance date. 

The FAA originally included subpart 

E in the proposed rule, which stated 

that air carriers and other operators 

subject to the applicability of PRIA 

would no longer be permitted to comply 

with PRIA two years and 90 days after 

publication of the final rule. The FAA 

adopts that section here. Some 

commenters recommended that the FAA 

continue PRIA; however, as the FAA 

discusses in Section IV.C.4 regarding 

comments about the transition to PRD, 

the PRD Act includes an explicit 

requirement that the FAA’s 

implementing regulations for PRD must 

sunset PRIA. This section is amended to 

incorporate the extension of the final 

compliance deadline by one year. Use of 

PRIA is no longer permitted after 

September 9, 2024. 

3. Definitions—Section 111.10 

The FAA proposed several definitions 

in the NPRM. In response to comments 

received, the FAA amends several 

definitions to capture accurately the 

intent of the requirement and maintain 

consistency with other sections of part 

111. The FAA also removed some 

definitions proposed in the NPRM after 

determining they were redundant or did 

not need to be codified. 

i. Comments Received 

NBAA commented on the FAA’s 

proposal to define the term ‘‘employed’’ 

as being paid for more than 20 hours per 

week for services rendered to the 

operator. NBAA explained it expects 

this definition to apply when describing 

individuals eligible to be the operator’s 

responsible person and to the term 

‘‘individual employed as a pilot.’’ 

NBAA contended operators should not 

be responsible for submitting records for 

pilots who are employed less than half 

time, as this will avoid duplication of 

training records. NBAA also 

recommended aligning the definition of 

‘‘employed’’ with the common industry 

practice of employing contractors on a 

daily basis. NBAA recommended that 

the FAA use the defined phrase 

‘‘individual employed as a pilot’’ in 

§ 111.105 when describing when a 

hiring operator needs to evaluate pilot 

records. 

The PlaneSense commenters noted 

the proposed definition of ‘‘individual 

employed as a pilot’’ assumes the pilot 

is employed by the company at the time 

the pilot first undertakes training, 

creating an obligation to provide data on 

a pilot who may be receiving training, 

but is not yet an employee and may not 

become an employee. These 

commenters argued the definition is 

overly broad and that training records 

could be used against them by a future 

employer. The PlaneSense commenters 

stated such a requirement would 

circumvent an employer’s and 

applicant’s right to privacy regarding 

screening and hiring practices. These 

commenters requested the FAA revise 

the rule to reflect that the pilot has been 

hired or otherwise retained by the 

reporting company. 

Cummins, Inc., A4A, and Ameristar 

expressed concern that the NPRM did 

not include a clear definition of ‘‘pilot 

performance.’’ Cummins urged the 

Agency to include clear guidelines 

regarding what constitutes pilot 

performance and flying duties to ensure 

a consistent understanding of the data to 

be included in the database. 

Ameristar recommended amending 

the definition of ‘‘Record pertaining to 

pilot performance’’ to identify specific 

events that must be maintained in the 

record, and that these events be limited 

to events required by law or regulation; 

for example, the term should include 

records of whether a pilot passed or 

failed a proficiency check. Ameristar 

recommended the FAA define 

additional terms such as ‘‘good faith’’ 

and ‘‘trustee in bankruptcy’’ for clarity 

and to remove subjectivity. Ameristar 

also suggested a ‘‘trustee in bankruptcy’’ 

be expanded to ‘‘a trustee in bankruptcy 

of an air operator that hires or utilizes 

pilots.’’ Regarding the discussion about 

part 135 operators, Ameristar noted that 

the rule did not distinguish part 135 

operators from part 135 air carriers. 

Ameristar indicated the proposed 

definition of ‘‘historical record’’ 

suggests the record is only generated 

after another operator requests that 

record. Ameristar recommended that the 

FAA amend the definition to read ‘‘. . . 

means records maintained by an air 

carrier or other operator under the 

requirements of this section (§ 111)’’ and 

delete the rest of the proposed 

definition. 

A4A argued similarly that the FAA 

should clarify the meaning of 

‘‘pertaining to pilot performance.’’ 

Specifically, A4A asserted the proposed 

rule fails to resolve one of the key issues 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
31020 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

that divided the members of the PRD 

ARC; namely: 

Whether the disciplinary or termination 

records of a pilot who committed 

documented acts of racial discrimination, 

sexual harassment, harassing or intimidating 

behavior that impedes crew resource 

management, off-duty alcohol or drug 

misconduct, theft, fraud and/or dishonesty 

should be reported into the PRD. 

A4A noted that the issue of drawing 

boundaries around the ‘‘performance of 

a pilot’’ split the PRD ARC members and 

constituted almost 20% of the PRD ARC 

Report. A4A suggested that some 

language in the NPRM could be read to 

support the position that records of 

actions such as harassment and lying 

should not be entered into the PRD, but 

that other aspects of the NPRM, FAA 

regulations, legislative history, and 

general good piloting practices would 

strongly support the submission of the 

grounds for the discipline and 

termination into the PRD. A4A stated 

that parties need definitive guidance 

from the FAA on how to handle the 

records of pilots who commit serious 

misconduct. Without a specific 

definition, A4A argued, whether a 

specific act is ‘‘related to the core duties 

and responsibilities of a pilot’’ will 

differ from employer to employer and 

may even differ within a single 

employer’s pilot population as the 

phrase becomes subject to disputes 

leading to arbitration and third-party 

resolution. A4A recommended that the 

final rule clarify what is included in a 

pilot’s ‘‘core duties and responsibilities’’ 

and specifically address ‘‘whether it 

includes crew resource management 

considerations and the obligation to 

treat all persons with dignity and 

respect.’’ 

NBAA recommended that the FAA 

use consistent phrasing throughout the 

document and noted the need for 

consistency in the use of the words ‘‘air 

carrier’’ and ‘‘other operators.’’ For 

example, NBAA stated that based on the 

proposed language in § 111.220 it was 

not clear if the reporting requirements 

apply to ‘‘other operators.’’ An 

individual commenter stated ‘‘other 

persons’’ is vague and arbitrary and 

urged the FAA to define the term and 

open the definition for public comment. 

This commenter also noted the NPRM 

did not define the term ‘‘public aircraft 

operations.’’ 

ii. FAA Response 

The FAA revises the definition of 

‘‘begins service as a pilot’’ to distinguish 

at what point the FAA considers a pilot 

to have begun service with an employer 

such that a PRD evaluation must have 

been completed for that pilot. This date 

is in contrast to the ‘‘PRD date of hire’’ 

which is the first date on which an 

employer must begin entering records 

for a pilot. The ‘‘PRD date of hire’’ 

would include initial training and other 

training completed prior to beginning 

service as a required flight crewmember. 

The FAA also incorporates part of the 

proposed definition of ‘‘Individual 

employed as a pilot,’’ which was 

duplicative of the definition of ‘‘begins 

service as a pilot,’’ and adds that the 

individual can be employed directly or 

on a contract basis. 

Commenters conflated the review of 

an individual’s records, which is not 

required to be complete until the 

individual begins service as a pilot, with 

when records must be reported about an 

individual, which will include any 

training that occurs prior to a pilot 

becoming a required flight crewmember. 

All records generated about a pilot from 

the PRD date of hire by the employer 

will be subject to the applicability of the 

PRD. For the purposes of reporting 

records to the PRD, the ‘‘PRD Hire Date’’ 

means the earliest date on which an 

individual is expected to begin any form 

of company required training or to 

perform any other duty for an operator 

subject to the applicability of part 111 

in preparation for the individual’s 

service as a pilot, including both direct 

employment and employment that 

occurs on a contract basis for any form 

of compensation. 

The NTSB expressed an interest in 

ensuring all records applicable to events 

prior to beginning service as a pilot 

would be captured in the PRD, 

discussed further in Section III.A.1. The 

FAA intends to capture any records that 

an operator may generate about a pilot 

in the time between when a pilot begins 

training and the time a pilot is actually 

assigned to act as a required flight 

crewmember. The FAA does not agree 

with commenters who asserted that 

training records that occur when a pilot 

is beginning employment with an 

operator should not be included in the 

PRD. As discussed further in Section 

V.F.3, the FAA and other commenters 

believe those records have significant 

value to a potential hiring employer. 

Any training that occurs prior to a 

pilot’s actual employment with an 

operator would not be included in the 

PRD due to the constraints of the PRD 

Act, but if the pilot is receiving training 

and any form of compensation for that 

training, the FAA will consider that 

pilot to be employed for purposes of 

part 111. 

The FAA defines ‘‘begins service as a 

pilot’’ to mean the earliest date on 

which a pilot serves as a pilot flight 

crewmember or is assigned duties as a 

pilot in flight for an operator that is 

subject to the applicability of this part. 

This definition applies when a pilot’s 

records must have been evaluated prior 

to allowing a pilot to begin service. This 

means an operator could hire a pilot and 

begin training before evaluating all of 

the records in the PRD. However, a pilot 

cannot be assigned to pilot duties 

without the operator having evaluated 

the records in the PRD. 

Some commenters were concerned 

with how the definition of ‘‘employed’’ 

was used in the proposal. ‘‘Employed’’ 

in the context raised by NBAA refers to 

proposed criteria for a responsible 

person, described in the preamble of the 

NPRM, with no relationship to a pilot’s 

employment with an operator for 

purposes of reporting pilot records to 

the PRD. For the purpose of accessing 

the PRD, the proposed rule considered 

a responsible person for an entity 

conducting public aircraft operations or 

corporate flight department must be 

paid for more than 20 hours a week for 

services rendered to the operator. After 

considering comments, the FAA is not 

adopting the NPRM preamble 

description of ‘‘employed’’ as an 

eligibility factor for a responsible 

person. 

The FAA amended the definition of 

‘‘final separation from employment 

record’’ by removing the list of 

examples of separation from 

employment actions, which had 

included resignation, termination, 

physical or medical disqualification, 

professional disqualification, furlough, 

extended leave, or retirement. This 

revision reduces redundancy with the 

updated requirements in this rule, 

which address this subject adequately 

by describing the different possible 

categorizations for separation from 

employment actions in subpart C of part 

111. 

The FAA amends the definitions of 

‘‘final separation from employment 

action’’ and ‘‘final disciplinary action’’ 

to reflect that it is incumbent on the 

operator to determine at what point a 

disciplinary or separation action is final 

and therefore subject to either reporting 

requirement in the PRD. Each operator 

has sufficient knowledge and oversight 

over its own processes for handling 

disciplinary action; therefore, the 

operator is in the best position to 

determine that an action is not subject 

to a pending dispute, which would 

include any legal proceeding regarding 

the final result of that action. Once no 

longer pending, including a record of it 

is appropriate. Section V.C.7 includes a 

description of the comments the FAA 

received on this topic. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31021 

40Advisory Circular 120–68J, The Pilot Records 

Database and Pilot Records Improvement Act 

Advisory Circular, which will be published to the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

In response to comments asking for 

clarification of training records 

pertaining to pilot performance, the 

FAA publishes an Advisory Circular, 

AC120–68J 40 with this rule that 

includes specific lists of events which 

the FAA expects to be entered into the 

PRD based on the training program for 

a particular pilot. The FAA intends that 

if a record exists for the pilot as 

described at § 111.225 and as further 

described in the AC, and the record is 

retained by the reporting entity, then it 

must be entered into the PRD. Each 

record type that an operator will report 

is described by the event that prompts 

the reporting requirement. The FAA 

considered including the specific listing 

in part 111, but determined that 

approach would limit the reporting 

flexibility needed as training and 

checking evolves in the future. The FAA 

also removed the reference to the FAA 

from this definition, because roles and 

responsibilities assigned by an employer 

inherently are subject to FAA 

regulations or other regulations without 

explicit mention in this definition. 

The FAA further establishes in this 

final rule what the Agency considers to 

be a record associated with pilot 

performance. In § 111.10, the FAA 

defines a record pertaining to pilot 

performance as records of an activity or 

event directly related to an individual’s 

completion of the core duties and 

responsibilities of a pilot to maintain 

safe aircraft operations. The duties and 

responsibilities are assigned by the 

employer and are based on FAA 

regulations or other applicable 

regulations, such as the Transportation 

Security Administration or the Pipelines 

and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration. Ultimately, the 

employer reporting the record would 

determine whether the action causing 

the employer to terminate the pilot’s 

employment affected safe aircraft 

operations, as it is a case-by-case 

determination. Situations may occur in 

which a pilot’s behavior or actions are 

not directly related to operating the 

aircraft but still affect that pilot’s ability 

to maintain safe aircraft operations. One 

example of this would be documented 

harassment of a coworker who operates 

an aircraft with that pilot, regardless of 

whether the harassment occurs during 

flight operations. Fear of harassment 

could negatively affect safe aircraft 

operations. The FAA does not believe 

that it should preclude an employer 

from considering such an event as 

related to a pilot’s performance if that 

employer believes the event is 

fundamentally related to maintaining 

safe aircraft operations, which includes 

effective crew resource management. 

Overall, because good judgment by the 

pilot is a critical part of safe aircraft 

operation, pilot performance could 

include events other than those strictly 

related to a pilot’s level of skill in 

operating an aircraft. 

The FAA removed the definitions of 

‘‘air carrier,’’ ‘‘other operator,’’ and 

‘‘participating operator’’ from this final 

rule because those definitions were 

duplicative of applicability 

requirements. Where the FAA refers to 

‘‘operators’’ in the regulatory text and 

the preamble, it is referring generally to 

all operators, including air carriers and 

other certificate holders, who would be 

subject to the applicability of this part. 

After review and evaluation of the 

comments, the FAA amended the 

definition of ‘‘historical record’’ to 

remove the reference to the 

Administrator, as it was not necessary. 

In addition, this rule contains an 

amended applicability provision 

describing PAO, which provides 

specific criteria based directly on 

applicable statutory provisions. 

This rule includes two definitions not 

proposed in the NPRM, to add clarity to 

the regulatory text regarding which 

operators are subject to each 

requirement. The FAA defines 

Reviewing entity as an operator subject 

to the applicability of subpart B of part 

111 (Access to and Evaluation of 

Records); and Reporting entity as an 

operator subject to the applicability of 

subpart C of part 111 (Reporting of 

Records). These definitions do not 

substantively change part 111. 

The FAA did not adopt a regulatory 

definition of ‘‘access the PRD,’’ but 

confirms its meaning is to use the 

credentials issued by the Administrator 

in accordance with this part to retrieve 

information related to an individual 

pilot, to report to the PRD information 

required by this part, or for a 

responsible person to manage user 

access. A pilot also would access the 

PRD to grant consent to a reviewing 

entity to access that pilot’s records. 

Lastly, this rule does not include a 

definition of writing/written in part 111. 

The FAA will provide the appropriate 

signature requirements within the 

identity verification mechanism of PRD 

approval, as the FAA expects the PRD 

will accept digital signatures. Digital 

verification of the pilot’s identity by 

logging into the PRD could also serve as 

a signature. 

The FAA otherwise adopts § 111.10 

substantively as proposed. The FAA 

evaluated all comments regarding 

perceived lack of clarity or 

inconsistency in phraseology used and 

made updates to the final rule to convey 

clearly the requirements of each section. 

The FAA determined that prescriptive 

definitions of ‘‘good faith exception’’ 

and ‘‘trustee in bankruptcy’’ were not 

necessary, because the underlying 

regulations concerning these terms 

describe them adequately in context of 

the applicable requirements. This rule 

also contains edits throughout part 111 

to maximize regulatory clarity, which 

alleviates the need include the other 

definitions that commenters requested. 

4. Application for Database Access— 

Section 111.15 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed 

requiring an operator’s responsible 

person to submit an application for 

database access including information 

necessary for identity verification. The 

proposed rule included the ability for a 

responsible person to delegate PRD 

access to two other types of users 

(proxies and authorized users) and 

proposed minimum qualification 

requirements for the responsible person. 

Proposed § 111.15 also included terms 

for continuing access to the PRD, 

requirements for changes to application 

information, and timelines for 

compliance for new operators subject to 

this part. 

This rule revises paragraph (a) to 

include an updated interim compliance 

date in which reporting entities must 

submit an initial application for 

database access. After considering 

comments received regarding observed 

gaps in PRIA, particularly those 

received from the NTSB and the 

Families of Continental Flight 3407, the 

FAA determined PRD implementation 

would be served best by ensuring 

employers subject to the rule begin to 

transition from PRIA to PRD as soon as 

possible. The FAA also acknowledges 

comments received requesting greater 

collaboration with industry and more 

time to enable compliance, especially 

considering potential technological 

difficulties and the effects of the 

COVID–19 public health emergency on 

the aviation industry. 

The next step in building the industry 

records component of the database and 

facilitating its use is to ensure each 

operator subject to the applicability of 

this rule has identified a responsible 

person in the database. The PRD 

program manager will collaborate with 

that individual on the transition 

process. Consequently, the FAA 

includes a provision in § 111.15(a) 

requiring operators to submit an 

application with all of the information 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
31022 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

identified in § 111.15 by September 8, 

2021. Operators initiating operations 

after September 8, 2021, must submit an 

application at least 30 days prior to 

initiating operations. Additionally, 

trustees in bankruptcy appointed for an 

operator subject to the applicability of 

this rule must begin to comply with the 

transition timelines of this rule as 

prescribed by part 111, as applicable. 

Because a trustee can either be 

delegated access or apply to be a 

responsible person, the FAA does not 

envision that every trustee would 

submit an application, but to the extent 

a trustee would be a responsible person 

and is currently appointed in 

accordance with the criteria in this 

section, the FAA would expect that 

trustee to submit an application if the 

trustee will be a responsible person. 

The FAA makes clarifying 

amendments throughout the regulatory 

text in § 111.15(b)–(h), but does not 

make any other substantive changes to 

the requirements for the application for 

database access, except to require 

submission of a telephone number to 

accompany the email address. In 

response to a comment from CAA 

regarding how long the FAA expects to 

take to approve the PRD user access, the 

FAA requests applicants submit their 

applications one week in advance of 

necessary access. 

5. Database Access—Section 111.20 

Proposed § 111.20 set forth the 

conditions under which authorized 

users and proxies, to whom a 

responsible person has delegated access, 

may access the PRD. Notably, persons 

may only access the PRD for purposes 

of uploading, reviewing, or retrieving 

records in accordance with the 

requirements of part 111. The FAA also 

proposed that if a responsible person’s 

PRD access is terminated, the access of 

the authorized users and proxies may be 

terminated. 

The FAA modifies proposed § 111.20 

to consolidate parts of the section and 

to convey the FAA’s intent to limit 

access to the PRD in a manner that is 

aligned entirely with the purpose of the 

PRD Act. A person may access the PRD 

only in a manner consistent with the 

purposes set forth in this section: For 

reporting pilot records or for reviewing 

pilot records to inform a hiring decision 

about a specific pilot. The responsible 

person is accountable for ensuring that 

any person accessing the PRD complies 

with part 111 when reporting or 

reviewing records on behalf of the 

responsible person. Further, under this 

final rule and in accordance with the 

PRD Act, proxy companies will not be 

permitted to collect PRD data about any 

pilot for use by that company outside its 

specific employment with a particular 

operator for reporting or review of an 

individual pilot’s records. ‘‘Skimming’’ 

or otherwise aggregating pilot data 

outside of the PRD for re-sale or to 

provide a list of pre-screened pilots is 

strictly prohibited both by § 111.20 and 

49 U.S.C. 44703(i). 

Lastly, as proposed in the NPRM and 

as adopted in this final rule, PRD access 

for authorized users and proxies is 

contingent on the continued validity of 

the responsible person’s electronic 

access. 

6. Denial of Access—Section 111.25 

The NPRM proposed that access 

credentials for the PRD would be subject 

to duration, renewal, and cancellation 

for a length of time to be determined by 

the Administrator. The FAA also 

proposed conditions under which the 

FAA could deny access to the PRD due 

to misuse of the database, including 

intentionally reporting inaccurate 

information, and as necessary to protect 

the security of the PRD. The FAA 

proposed denying access if an operator’s 

operating authority is revoked. The 

proposed rule included a procedure for 

reconsideration of denial of access. 

The FAA revises and reorganizes 

§ 111.25 to remove duration, renewal, 

and cancellation of responsible person 

credentials, and modifies the title of the 

section accordingly. Those provisions 

did not specify a timeframe for any of 

those activities as it relates to the 

electronic credentials because the 

duration depends on the vendor 

providing the identity verification. 

Because multiple ways exist for 

complying with application submittal, 

identity verification, and approval for 

access, the FAA will provide further 

detail regarding the technological 

specifications of user accounts. As 

stated in the NPRM, the PRD will 

comply with all Federal guidelines for 

electronic databases. The final rule 

retains the proposed provisions for 

denial of access in this section, because 

the section contains the criteria under 

which database access may be denied 

and does not contain specific terms 

based on changing technology the PRD 

might use. The final rule also adds an 

intent requirement to one of the stated 

bases for denial of access, such that the 

intentional reporting of false or 

fraudulent information to the database 

is an enumerated reason to deny access. 

The final rule further authorizes 

denial of access if the FAA suspends an 

operator’s operating authority, such as a 

letter of authorization or operating 

certificate. This provision is otherwise 

adopted as proposed. 

7. Prohibited Access or Use—Section 

111.30 

The FAA proposed to prohibit 

unauthorized access or use of the PRD, 

including a prohibition on sharing 

records with anyone not directly 

involved in the hiring decision. The 

FAA adopts § 111.30 as proposed, 

except for a change to permit a pilot to 

share the pilot’s own PRD airman record 

(PAR) without being subject to the 

prohibitions in part 111. 

The FAA did not adopt the proposed 

definition of ‘‘directly involved in the 

hiring decision’’ as it is unnecessary. As 

stated in the NPRM, that phrase means: 

[A]ny individual who is responsible for 

making pilot hiring decisions on behalf of the 

employer or who is responsible for advising 

the decision maker on whether or not to hire 

an individual as a pilot. 

Pilot records must not be shared outside 

of persons working on behalf of a 

reviewing entity in furtherance of that 

specific hiring process. 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to 

require air carriers and other operators 

complying with subpart B to maintain 

the privacy and confidentiality of pilot 

records, as required by the PRD Act at 

49 U.S.C. 44703(i)(13). Specifically, the 

FAA proposed to require air carriers and 

other operators to secure pilot records in 

the normal course of business. The FAA 

adopts that proposed provision in this 

section with revisions to mirror the 

statutory standard for protection of such 

records. The intent of the regulation as 

proposed does not change; for example, 

if a hiring employer rendered pilot 

information insecure by distributing 

that pilot’s PAR throughout the 

company to individuals not directly 

involved in the hiring process, the 

hiring employer would be in violation 

of this regulation. 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to 

mitigate risks to privacy by adopting 

strict privacy standards and establishing 

limits on access to the PRD, and adopts 

those standards throughout this part. 

Specifically, the FAA will adhere to 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST) Federal Information 

Security Management Act (FISMA) 

800.53 Security and Privacy Controls for 

Federal Information Systems and 

Organizations to secure information 

contained in the PRD. The FAA further 

discusses issues raised by commenters 

with respect to pilot privacy in Section 

IV.C. 

The FAA also removed paragraph (c) 

concerning the Administrator’s access 

and use of information maintained in 

the database for purposes consistent 

with oversight. The FAA determined 

that while it will use its oversight 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31023 

authority to ensure compliance with 

part 111, it was not necessary to codify 

the statement in the regulations. 

8. Fraud and Falsification—Section 

111.35 

The FAA proposed to prohibit 

fraudulent or intentionally false 

statements from being reported to the 

PRD. The FAA adopts § 111.35 

substantively as proposed, with edits to 

the regulatory text to reorganize the 

section. Section V.C.11 contains a 

summary of, and response to, comments 

the FAA received regarding the 

inclusion of false or fraudulent 

statements as it relates to the record 

correction and dispute resolution 

process. 

9. Record Retention—Section 111.40 

In proposed § 111.50, the FAA 

proposed to require records remain in 

the PRD for the life of the pilot. The 

proposed rule stated a pilot’s records 

would be removed from the database 

upon notification of death from next of 

kin or when 99 years have passed since 

the individual’s date of birth. The FAA 

adopts this provision with one 

substantive change, reorganizes the 

section, and renumbers it as § 111.40. 

As summarized in Section IV.C and in 

response to comments, the FAA is 

removing the requirement that the 

notification of death come from the 

pilot’s next of kin. The FAA also 

removed the record retention 

instructions for such records from this 

regulatory provision. The record 

retention term absent the notification of 

death described in this section is 

captured in the appropriate record 

retention schedule. The removal of this 

term from the regulatory text does not 

affect the FAA’s requirements for such 

information. 

Although identifying information 

from the pilot’s record will be removed 

after notification of death or 99 years 

have passed since the individual’s date 

of birth, the FAA may use de-identified 

information from those pilots in the 

database for research and statistical 

purposes to further the Agency’s safety 

mission. 

10. Sections Not Adopted 

i. User Fee—Proposed Section 111.40 

Previously, § 111.40 contained the 

FAA’s proposal for a user fee for 

accessing the PRD to evaluate pilot 

records. The FAA received comments 

from both organizations and individuals 

regarding the proposed user fee, most 

expressing opposition. Commenters 

were concerned about the cost of the fee 

and how a fee would affect a reviewing 

entity’s ability to view a pilot’s PAR 

multiple times. Commenters also 

proposed different ways of adjusting the 

fee, which would have either benefited 

smaller operators or large operators 

depending on the method. 

After considering the comments 

received and the changes to the 

structure of the database to ensure a 

burden proportionate to the safety 

benefits of this rule, the FAA 

determined to withdraw the user fee 

proposal, for multiple reasons. The new 

method of reporting in § 111.215 may 

require a reviewing entity to access a 

pilot’s PAR more than once. 

Uncertainties also exist regarding how 

COVID–19 will impact hiring for 

reviewing entities, which would affect 

the user fee analysis. Therefore, no fee 

will exist for accessing the PRD at this 

time. The FAA will continue to evaluate 

the cost of the PRD and may revisit this 

determination at a later time. 

ii. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 

Requests—Proposed Section 111.45 

Under § 111.45, the FAA proposed 

that PRD records would be exempt from 

FOIA, with some exceptions, as set forth 

in 49 U.S.C. 44703(i)(9)(B). Specifically, 

information reported to the PRD would 

be subject to disclosure as follows: (1) 

De-identified, summarized information 

may be disclosed to explain the need for 

changes in policies and regulations; (2) 

information may be disclosed to correct 

a condition that compromises safety; (3) 

information may be disclosed to carry 

out a criminal investigation or 

prosecution; (4) information may be 

disclosed to comply with 49 U.S.C. 

44905, regarding information about 

threats to civil aviation; and (5) such 

information as the Administrator 

determines necessary may be disclosed 

if withholding the information would 

not be consistent with the safety 

responsibilities of the FAA. 

a. Comments Received 

A4A, the PlaneSense commenters, 

and an individual commented on 

proposed § 111.45, which addresses the 

FOIA requests. The commenters 

generally agreed with the proposal to 

exempt certain information reported to 

the PRD from disclosure in response to 

FOIA requests but relayed specific 

concerns regarding the language of the 

section or on the scope of the 

information permitted to be released. 

A4A also recommended the FAA clarify 

the definition of ‘‘de-identify,’’ and 

what information can be shared with 

NTSB officials, and that carriers should 

have the ability to limit access to certain 

kinds of records. A4A stated that the 

FAA must state explicitly whether it 

intends to use PRD data for purposes 

other than to meet PRD requirements. It 

also commented that the NPRM permits 

disclosure of information to correct a 

condition that compromises safety, 

consistent with an exception codified in 

part 193. The commenter said that the 

language in part 193 exceptions 

includes ensuring ‘‘that the holder of an 

FAA certificate is qualified for that 

certificate, and preventing ongoing 

violations of safety or security 

regulations.’’ The commenter stated this 

raises the issue of whether the FAA 

intends to use the submitted 

information to take enforcement action. 

The PlaneSense commenters and 

another individual recommended 

eliminating any reference to criminal 

investigation or prosecution and 

providing that the information may only 

be disclosed pursuant to a duly issued 

court order or subpoena. The 

PlaneSense commenters also requested 

that the provision of the proposal 

permitting release of records in the 

database in situations consistent with 

the safety responsibilities of the FAA 

not be used without prior reason to do 

so arising out of facts and circumstances 

occurring external to the database. 

Commenters said this section is 

overbroad and would permit the FAA to 

‘‘go fishing’’ for enforcement 

information that might not otherwise 

have been identified by the FAA in the 

normal course of business. Commenters 

also opined that 24-hour access to data 

uploaded by those obligated to do so is 

an unwelcome intrusion on both the 

pilots’ and the reporting employers’ 

privacy. 

Another commenter recommended 

the PRD have an Oversight Board to 

monitor the database, to request data 

from FAA, and to conduct 

investigations into aviation safety issues 

and training. The commenter said that 

the PRD would fit well under the 

Aviation Safety Information Analysis 

and Sharing umbrella and 

recommended that the FAA look at this 

program. 

A4A suggested that the FAA includes 

an additional exception to PRD data 

disclosure under FOIA that permits PRD 

data disclosure only to the extent 

permitted by the Privacy Act, including 

routine uses described in the System of 

Records Notice for DOT/FAA, Aviation 

Records on Individuals. A4A 

commented that the FAA should 

provide the public with an opportunity 

to discuss what disclosures, permitted 

by the Privacy Act, it shall include for 

purposes of the PRD Act. 

b. FAA Response 

The FAA does not adopt the proposal 

to include the statutory disclosure 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
31024 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

41 In 14 CFR part 193, ‘‘de-identified’’ means that 

the identity of the source of the information, and 

the names of persons have been removed from the 

information. 

prohibitions in regulatory text because 

the statutory protections exist regardless 

of inclusion in this regulation. The FAA 

will process all FOIA requests in 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552 and 

current Agency procedure for such 

requests, claiming FOIA exemptions 

associated with the statutory protections 

listed in 49 U.S.C. 44703(i)(9)(B), where 

applicable. 

Regarding comments on records 

contained in the PRD that would be 

subject to potential disclosure if the 

information is used as part of a criminal 

investigation or prosecution, the PRD 

Act specifically excludes information 

used to carry out a criminal 

investigation or prosecution from the 

information protection described in 49 

U.S.C. 44703(i)(9)(B). The PRD Act does 

not narrow that exclusion to apply only 

to information provided in response to 

a duly-issued court order or subpoena. 

The FAA will handle requests for such 

information in accordance with 

established practices for provision of 

information used to carry out a criminal 

investigation or prosecution. As allowed 

by the PRD Act, the FAA may also use 

de-identified, summarized information 

to explain the need for changes in 

policies and regulations. Statistical 

information derived from such deidentified information may become 

available to the public in the future. A 

commenter requested clarification 

regarding the FAA’s meaning of ‘‘deidentified.’’ The term ‘‘de-identified’’ 

has a similar definition to the definition 

the commenter mentioned from part 

193.41 The FAA would also remove the 

pilot’s certificate number so that there 

would be no way to discern the pilot’s 

identifying information. The FAA does 

not retrieve pilots’ records from the PRD 

for FAA enforcement or investigative 

purposes related to the pilots 

themselves. 

The PRD Act, at 49 U.S.C. 44703(k), 

does not preclude the availability of a 

pilot’s information to the NTSB in 

accordance with an investigation. The 

FAA would make records available to 

the NTSB in accordance with 

established procedures for provision of 

such information. Lastly, the FAA 

declines to establish an Oversight Board 

for the PRD, as doing so by regulation 

is beyond the scope of the proposed 

rule. 

The FAA will publish an updated 

Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) for the 

PRD system, which will be available at 

dot.gov/privacy and in the public docket 

for this rulemaking. 

B. Subpart B—Access to and Evaluation 

of Records 

1. Applicability—Section 111.100 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed that 

part 119 certificate holders, fractional 

ownership programs, and operators 

conducting air tour operations would be 

required to access the PRD to evaluate 

a pilot’s records. The FAA adopts 

§ 111.100 substantively as proposed. 

The applicability of this subpart 

remains unchanged from the NPRM. 

The FAA made edits to maximize 

regulatory clarity and to capture 

corresponding changes from other 

sections of part 111, as well as to 

consolidate duplicative requirements, 

and to add compliance dates for subpart 

B to this section. 

i. Comments Received 

The NTSB expressed support for the 

proposal to extend the evaluation 

requirements to non-air carrier entities, 

including corporate flight departments 

and air tour operators conducting 

operations in accordance with § 91.147. 

The NTSB noted that the FAA, in 

response to Safety Recommendation A– 

05–01, proposed to require all 

applicable operators to access and 

evaluate a pilot’s records in the PRD 

before making a hiring decision. The 

NTSB stated if the final rule is 

consistent with the NPRM, it believes 

the final rule would meet the intent of 

Safety Recommendation A–05–01. A4A 

stated it believes the PRD information 

will be used earlier in the hiring process 

before a conditional offer of 

employment is made to the pilot. One 

individual commented that use of the 

PRD will lead to a safer transportation 

system and that the system should not 

rely on pilot record books. 

Other commenters suggested the PRD 

would not be helpful in the hiring 

process because operators and owners 

already are incentivized to make 

informed hiring decisions based on a 

rigorous interviewing and screening 

process, regardless of regulatory 

requirements, given the significant 

liability associated with those decisions. 

Commenters also felt the PRD would not 

be beneficial for part 91 operators, 

opposed requiring any part 91 operators 

to review records, and indicated part 91 

operators communicate directly with 

other flight departments as part of the 

applicant screening process. An 

individual commenter noted some 

operators do not have fulltime pilots 

and often need crew at the last minute, 

and asserted accessing and evaluating 

PRD records on short notice would be 

impossible. Overall, some commenters 

generally contended operators would 

not use the database. 

ii. FAA Response 

The FAA agrees that all entities 

subject to this rule have an inherent 

incentive to make informed hiring 

decisions when hiring pilots. The FAA 

reiterates that the PRD is not intended 

to be the only source of information 

used by a subject employer when hiring 

a pilot. Neither does this rule tell a 

prospective employer what hiring 

decision to make on a pilot’s job 

application after viewing pertinent 

information in the PRD. Rather, 

consistent with the PRD Act and the 

FAA’s safety mission, this rule will 

ensure that critical information 

regarding a pilot’s record does not go 

unnoticed or unshared. Regarding the 

comments about pre-existing 

coordination between flight 

departments, the FAA notes that 

corporate flight departments as set forth 

in the applicability of this section are 

not required to review records under 

part 111, but may opt into the database 

voluntarily for record review. 

In response to the commenter who 

was concerned about a lack of time to 

review a pilot’s record’s on short notice, 

the FAA reiterates that a primary 

advantage of the PRD is the availability 

of records for hiring employers in an 

electronic database that is easily 

accessible. 

The FAA adopts revised compliance 

timelines for subpart B in this section. 

Under § 111.15, all operators required to 

comply with subpart B will have a 

responsible person established in the 

database beginning no later than 90 days 

after the date of publication of the final 

rule, so the review of FAA records in 

the PRD is the next logical step toward 

facilitating full compliance with part 

111. Some operators are already using 

the PRD optionally to review FAA 

records. The FAA acknowledges that the 

NTSB as well as members of Congress 

and the Families of Continental Flight 

3407 are invested in the quick 

implementation of the PRD. The FAA 

finds that interim compliance helps 

quicken implementation and facilitates 

the successful long-term transition from 

PRIA to PRD. Entities utilizing and loadtesting the PRD will help grow its 

capabilities for upload of industry 

records. Compliance with review of 

industry records begins one year after 

the date of publication of the final rule 

and the proposed date by which 

operators must comply with all of part 

111 is extended one year from the 

proposal to three years and 90 days after 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31025 

the date of publication of the final rule, 

as discussed in Section V.A.2. 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to 

allow corporate flight departments and 

PAO the discretion to choose to review 

certain records in accordance with 

subpart B. Regardless of this choice, the 

proposed rule would have required all 

such operators to comply with all the 

reporting requirements of subpart C. For 

those operators, the FAA adds a 

provision to require those operators to 

comply with § 111.120 (requiring 

receipt of pilot consent), to ensure 

compliance with those protections. 

Corporate flight departments and PAO 

choosing to access the PRD for record 

review must comply with certain 

requirements regarding pilot consent, 

but are not required to comply fully 

with other provisions in subpart B. 

2. Evaluation of Pilot Records and 

Limitations on Use—Section 111.105 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to 

prohibit operators subject to this part 

from permitting an individual to begin 

service as a pilot prior to reviewing that 

pilot’s records in the PRD. The records 

proposed to be reviewed included FAA 

records, records populated from current 

and former employers reporting records 

in accordance with subpart C, historical 

records, and NDR records. The FAA also 

proposed prohibiting misuse of the 

database, including reviewing records 

without pilot consent, permitting 

someone to access the database without 

proper authorization, and using pilot 

information for any purpose other than 

determining whether to hire a particular 

pilot. 

i. Comments Received 

CAPA indicated that the FAA stated 

this proposal does not contain a 

requirement for a substantial increase in 

records kept by the carrier; however, 

CAPA noted the PRD Act and the NPRM 

require evaluation of records. CAPA 

expressed concern about safeguards to 

ensure the carrier performs this 

evaluation with a set of standard 

metrics. CAPA recommended the FAA 

require pilots’ labor organizations, 

airline management, and the FAA to 

perform the evaluation jointly, as has 

been done in other successful 

collaborations, such as ASAP. 

Ameristar sought clarification 

regarding who is responsible for 

evaluating a pilot’s records. Ameristar 

also recommended that the FAA modify 

proposed § 111.105(a)(3) to state the 

requirement specifically rather than 

refer to 49 U.S.C. 44703(h). Ameristar 

also commented that proposed 

§ 111.105(b) appears to duplicate 

proposed § 111.120. 

A4A noted the PRIA records are 

available to the hiring committee for 

review; however, it was not apparent to 

A4A if the hiring committee will have 

access to the record. A4A urged the 

FAA to eliminate the hiring language 

from the final rule and clarify there is 

no change in carrier obligation to review 

records prior to an individual beginning 

service as a pilot. CAA also commented 

that it is unclear how hiring committees 

assigned to review the records and rank 

applications for the future will be able 

to access the records and conduct 

reviews if only one of three individuals 

on a committee has access to review 

records, especially considering the 

proposed user fee charged to the 

operator each time the record is 

accessed. 

CAPA commented that the proposed 

rule indicates that the PRD is only to be 

used for pilot hiring purposes, but the 

NPRM also mentions ‘‘assisting air 

carriers in making informed hiring and 

personnel management decisions.’’ 

CAPA expressed concern about this 

contradiction and recommended it be 

corrected. 

A4A also noted the NPRM proposes to 

limit the use of PRD data to permit 

using the data only for the purpose of 

determining whether to hire a pilot. 

A4A argues that, while a safety benefit 

exists for having current information for 

prospective pilots, the rule should also 

contain a provision to allow for access 

to other information that would be 

mutually beneficial to the individual 

pilot and the current employer. 

A4A further recommended the FAA 

clarify that an air carrier would have the 

ability to limit access to specific types 

of pilot records (training, drug and 

alcohol) with regard to what types of 

records particular personnel of the air 

carrier are or able to access about a 

particular pilot. A4A said the NPRM 

does not state explicitly that authorized 

users with access to a pilot’s records are 

limited with regard to records they may 

be able to access about a particular pilot. 

A4A recommended the FAA further 

limit access to confidential drug and 

alcohol testing records in the PRD to air 

carrier-designated persons that 

administer the drug and alcohol testing 

program. 

ii. FAA Response 

The FAA will not standardize review 

criteria or metrics for review of pilot 

records, because every employer’s 

hiring practices are different. The PRD 

is simply a means of providing pilot 

information for hiring decisions. 

The FAA is limited by statute from 

permitting the use of the PRD for any 

purpose other than an employer’s 

review of a pilot’s records for hiring 

decisions. In citing the PRD’s usefulness 

for personnel management decisions, 

the FAA meant that having pertinent 

information before allowing an 

individual to begin service as a pilot can 

aid operators in overall personnel 

management. As such, the FAA will not 

allow access to the PRD for other 

purposes. 

Review of a pilot’s record, as set forth 

in § 111.10, must occur before the pilot 

begins service as a pilot. This 

clarification is discussed further in 

Section V.A.3. 

The PRD Act does not provide 

discretion to allow access to the PRD for 

record review to anyone except a person 

from a reviewing entity who evaluates 

those records prior to permitting an 

individual to begin service as a pilot 

crewmember. Whoever the responsible 

person delegates to access the PRD will 

be able to evaluate those records for the 

limited purpose of reviewing 

information relevant to hiring decisions. 

This rule addresses consent and 

privacy concerns, especially regarding 

sensitive pilot records, by providing 

safeguards in part 111. Further, the FAA 

takes seriously its fulfillment of all 

confidentiality requirements pertaining 

to the release of a pilot’s drug and 

alcohol information, in accordance with 

49 CFR part 40. 

The FAA amends § 111.105 to make 

corresponding changes to subpart B to 

accommodate the new alternate method 

of reporting records permitted by 

§ 111.215 for certain operators. The FAA 

also removes the prohibition on 

reviewing records without pilot consent, 

as it was duplicative of § 111.120. 

Changes to § 111.105(a)(1) and (2) 

split review of FAA records from 

industry records to facilitate use of the 

PRD to review all FAA records 

beginning 180 days from the date of 

publication of the final rule. Industry is 

already required to review these FAA 

records under PRIA, so this change only 

affects the vehicle by which they access 

these records. 

Section 111.105(a)(4) also includes a 

new provision associated with 

§ 111.215, which enables a new method 

of reporting for certain operators. 

Section 111.105(a)(4) requires persons 

reviewing records in accordance with 

subpart B to compare the records in the 

pilot’s PAR to the list of employers 

provided with the pilot’s consent form 

(See Section V.D.3.). If an employer has 

not uploaded records relating to that 

pilot but the employer appears as a 

former employer on the list provided by 

the pilot, the PRD will generate a 

request for the reviewing entity that 

goes directly to the reporting entity, by 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
31026 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

42 49 U.S.C. 44703(i)(9)(A). 

notifying the responsible person 

identified on the application in 

§ 111.15. As described further in Section 

V.C.4., the reviewing entity will receive 

a notification once any relevant records 

have been reported, or notification that 

no applicable additional records are 

available to report. 

This proposed rule adopts the 

remainder of § 111.105, as proposed. 

3. Motor Vehicle Driving Record 

Request—Section 111.110 

In § 111.110, the FAA proposed that 

all operators subject to part 111, with 

exceptions, must query the National 

Driver Register (NDR) prior to 

permitting an individual to begin 

service as a pilot, to obtain and review 

State records on the motor vehicle 

driving history of the pilot. The FAA 

proposed that entities querying the NDR 

would have to keep substantiating 

documentation for five years to ensure 

that the FAA would be able to audit, if 

necessary, the completion of this search. 

i. Comments Received 

A4A supported that the FAA did not 

require motor vehicle driving record 

information to be entered in the PRD, 

stating that this approach reduced 

opportunity for the PRD to include 

inaccurate or incomplete pilot 

information. A4A also stated this policy 

is consistent with the ARC 

recommendation regarding NDR data. 

Ameristar recommended that the FAA 

revise § 111.110(a)(3)(i) by replacing ‘‘49 

U.S.C. 30301’’ with ‘‘a state 

participating in the NDR Program,’’ 

explaining that without this change, 

operators have to reference the statute. 

ii. FAA Response 

Section 111.110 is adopted 

substantively as proposed, with minor 

revisions. The FAA added a reference to 

§ 111.310 in paragraph (a)(1) of 

§ 111.110, to note that operators 

required to review records that do not 

hold a certificate under part 119 are not 

required to query the NDR. PRIA 

specified that air carriers must review 

any NDR records while evaluating the 

other pilot records. The FAA 

determined that it would be appropriate 

not to extend the requirement to part 91 

operations, consistent with the FAA’s 

risk-based approach for regulating 

entities that do not hold a part 119 

certificate. 

4. Good Faith Exception—Section 

111.115 

The FAA proposed to include relief 

from the record review requirement for 

operators that made a good faith effort 

to obtain pilot records from the PRD but 

were not able to do so, due to no fault 

of the hiring employer. The FAA also 

proposed that it may notify a hiring 

employer if it has knowledge that a 

pilot’s records in the PRD might be 

incomplete due to dissolution of an 

organization or other issues with a prior 

employer. 

i. Comments Received 

NBAA recommended that the FAA 

should more clearly define ‘‘good faith’’ 

in accordance with existing PRIA 

language in PRIA AC120–68G, which 

uses the phrase ‘‘documented attempt to 

obtain such information.’’ 

NBAA recommended the FAA extend 

the good faith exception to the 

requirement in § 111.115 to report 

historical information under § 111.205. 

NBAA explained many non-air carrier 

operators have not maintained the 

records that would be subject to 

reporting under the proposed rule. Of 

those non-air carrier operators that have 

maintained records, NBAA indicated 

the records may not be in a format that 

allows for reasonable reporting that is 

not unduly burdensome. NBAA 

expressed concern that requiring 

operators to report records not 

maintained beyond the five-year period 

required by PRIA will encourage 

operators to manufacture records, 

diminishing the value of any accurate 

historical information in the database. 

Ameristar noted ‘‘good faith’’ effort in 

proposed §§ 111.115(a)(1) and 

111.410(a) is not defined and is 

subjective, and recommended the FAA 

define it. Ameristar suggested a 

registered letter sent to the last known 

place of business would constitute a 

good faith effort and has been accepted 

by FAA inspectors in the past. 

Ameristar also recommended that the 

FAA state some acceptable methods of 

compliance in the rule to provide 

guidance to affected parties. As an 

example, Ameristar stated certified mail 

return receipt requested or an 

acknowledged email should be 

acceptable. 

ii. FAA Response 

Section 111.115 is adopted as 

proposed. The meaning of ‘‘good faith’’ 

as used in part 111 comports with the 

current PRIA AC120–68G, which reads: 

If a pilot/applicant’s former employer has 

not responded after 30 calendar-days, 

document your attempts to obtain the PRIA 

records from them and contact the PRIA 

program manager to determine its status (see 

paragraph 3.5.2). If the nonresponding 

employer is bankrupt, out of business, or is 

a foreign entity, your documented attempts to 

contact that employer fulfill your obligation 

under PRIA. 

For application to the PRD, the 

reviewing entity’s following activities 

would suffice to fulfill the reviewing 

entity’s obligation under the PRD: Query 

of the PRD, completion of the NDR 

check, review of the pilot’s employment 

history, submission of requests to any 

employers listed on the pilot’s 

employment history that have not 

indicated that all records for that pilot 

are already in the PRD, and submission 

of PRIA requests to all the employers 

listed on the pilot’s employment history 

either in the PRD or with FAA form 

8060–11. When the reviewing entity 

waits at least 30 calendar days to receive 

those records and completes the PRDrelated activities described above, the 

good faith exception would be available 

to the reviewing entity. 

Regarding the comment to extend the 

good faith exception to historical record 

reporting, the FAA emphasizes that the 

good faith exception in § 111.115 is 

written to apply generally to persons 

subject to this subpart who are 

evaluating any records pertaining to the 

individual’s previous employment as a 

pilot and therefore would be available 

for any records regarding a pilot, 

historical or contemporaneous. 

5. Pilot Consent and Right of Review— 

Section 111.120 

In § 111.120, the FAA proposed to 

prohibit an operator reviewing records 

from doing so prior to receiving consent 

from the pilot whose records it is 

reviewing and proposed requiring the 

consent be reported to the database. The 

FAA also proposed requiring the hiring 

employer to provide the pilot with a 

copy of any records received from the 

NDR upon request. 

A4A asked the FAA to expand the 

pilot consent process beyond the scope 

of just the PRD to enable receipt by an 

operator of a pilot certificate or medical 

certificate upon renewal or change, to 

facilitate compliance with § 121.383. 

The FAA determined that use of the 

PRD for this purpose is beyond the 

scope of the PRD Act with respect to 

purposes for which information in the 

PRD may be used.42 Other comments 

regarding pilot privacy are discussed in 

Section IV.C. 

The FAA adopts § 111.120 as 

proposed, with minor edits and one 

substantive change. The FAA amends 

the regulatory text such that accessing 

the PRD to check whether the pilot has 

granted consent for that operator to view 

the pilot’s records would not be a 

violation of this regulation. The activity 

prohibited would be actual retrieval of 

the records prior to receiving consent. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31027 

43 The FAA adopted a policy to expunge records 

of certain closed legal enforcement actions against 

individuals. This policy applies to both airman 

certificate holders and other individuals, such as 

passengers. FAA Enforcement Records; Expunction 

Policy. 56 FR 55788. (Oct. 29, 1991). 

Although such retrieval will not be 

possible based on the technological 

restrictions imposed on the PRD by the 

system itself, the regulation also 

prohibits such retrieval in the absence 

of pilot consent. 

6. FAA Records—Section 111.135 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed 

requiring operators to review FAA 

records in the PRD. Specifically, the 

FAA proposed that hiring employers 

must review: Records related to current 

pilot and medical certificate 

information, including associated type 

ratings and information on any 

limitations to those certificates and 

ratings; records maintained by the 

Administrator concerning any failed 

attempt of an individual to pass a 

practical test required to obtain a 

certificate or type rating under 14 CFR 

part 61; records related to enforcement 

actions resulting in a finding by the 

Administrator that was not 

subsequently overturned of a violation 

of 49 U.S.C. or a regulation prescribed 

or order issued under that title; records 

related to an individual acting as pilot 

in command or second in command 

during an aviation accident or incident; 

records related to an individual’s preemployment drug and alcohol testing 

history; and drug and alcohol records 

reported to the FAA by employers 

regulated under other Department of 

Transportation regulations for whom 

that individual worked as a pilot. 

i. Comments on the FAA’s Expunction 

Policy 

The FAA formerly maintained a longstanding policy to expunge historical 

airman and enforcement records.43 The 

policy provided that, generally, records 

of legal enforcement actions involving 

suspension of an airman certificate or a 

civil penalty against an individual were 

maintained by the FAA for five years 

before being expunged. Records were 

not expunged if, at the time expunction 

was due, one or more other legal 

enforcement actions were pending 

against the same individual. The 

outcome of the most recent legal 

enforcement action determined when 

the older action was expunged; for 

example, if a pilot’s certificate was 

suspended in May 2000, but received 

another suspension in March 2005, both 

actions would be expunged in March 

2010, if no other enforcement actions 

were brought against the individual 

through March 2010. Actions resulting 

in revocations were never expunged. 

Following the enactment of the PRD 

Act, the FAA examined whether the 

expunction of certain enforcement 

actions could continue in light of the 

data collection, data retention, and 

FOIA protection requirements of the 

PRD. Accordingly, FAA published a 

notice (76 FR 7893, February 11, 2011) 

temporarily suspending its expunction 

policy. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed 

to maintain its current suspension of the 

expunction policy. Under existing 

policy, the FAA expunges an 

enforcement record in the Enforcement 

Information System (EIS), and only the 

information identifying the subject of 

the enforcement action is deleted (name, 

address, certificate number, etc.). The 

PRD Act, however, obligates the FAA to 

‘‘maintain all records entered into the 

[PRD] pertaining to an individual until 

the date of receipt of notification that 

the individual is deceased.’’ As FAA 

records are part of the ‘‘records entered 

into the [PRD] pertaining to an 

individual,’’ the FAA interprets the PRD 

Act to require that a pilot’s records 

cannot be expunged until the FAA has 

received notice of an individual’s death, 

or until 99 years have passed since that 

pilot’s date of birth. 

NBAA stated that the FAA’s 

expunction policy is consistent with the 

Privacy Act and that the FAA must still 

meet the requirements of the Privacy 

Act despite the PRD. NBAA further 

commented that by maintaining 

information in the PRD while limiting 

access to qualified employers, the FAA 

is still able to expunge other records and 

databases, such as the EIS. The 

commenter said that closed legal 

enforcement actions are neither relevant 

nor timely after a certain length of time. 

NBAA endorsed the PRD ARC 

recommendation to reinstate the 5-year 

expunction policy for enforcement 

actions for all pilot records and the 

recommendation that if the FAA 

determines records should be 

maintained indefinitely as a result of the 

PRD Act, the records maintained in the 

PRD should be expunged from EIS and 

any other FAA recordkeeping systems 

that contain them. 

RAA supported the proposal to 

maintain the current suspension of the 

expunction policy for all relevant EIS, 

CAIS, and AIDS records. The 

commenter also pointed to concerns 

expressed by the PRD ARC and asserted 

that the provisions of the PRD Act 

conflict with the Privacy Act. 

ii. Comments on Use of Aircraft 

Accident and Incident Data for the 

Proposed Rule 

CAPA expressed concern about the 

FAA’s use of aircraft accident and 

incident data and suggested that the 

FAA’s use of this data exceeds the scope 

of its mandate under the PRD Act. 

CAPA noted no current regulation or 

accepted practice exists in which the 

difficulty a pilot may have had in 

meeting a standard is considered in the 

pilot’s ability to perform duties once the 

pilot has met that standard. CAPA 

argued if the objective is to identify 

pilots who are perceived to have ‘‘failed 

too often’’ in their attempt to meet a 

standard, then the standard should be 

the subject of additional review. CAPA 

also stated the evaluation standards 

remain equal for all applicants 

regardless of the training necessary to 

successfully complete an evaluation. 

iii. FAA Response 

The FAA adopts the provision as 

proposed in the NPRM with respect to 

the FAA’s maintenance of its records in 

the PRD for the life of the pilot. 

Accordingly, the FAA is amending the 

records schedules for EIS records and 

AIDS records for this final rule. As 

discussed in the NPRM, the PRD Act 

requires pilot records to be kept ‘‘for the 

life of the pilot.’’ Because a hiring 

employer could view a pilot’s records 

indefinitely in the PRD, no harm results 

from maintaining suspension of the 

expunction policy with respect to 

records in EIS. 

The FAA records within the PRD are 

considered copies of records maintained 

in the CAIS, AIDS, and EIS databases. 

These databases are subject to the U.S. 

Department of Transportation’s system 

of records notice (SORN) entitled DOT/ 

FAA 847, Aviation Records on 

Individuals (November 9, 2010, 75 FR 

68849) and are made available to 

reviewing entities consistent with the 

consent provided by the pilot. 

Records integrated within the 

individual PARs, and records that 

operators provide for inclusion within 

the PRD, are not considered to be part 

of an FAA system as those records, 

when connected to a pilot with 

identifying information, are not used by 

the Department in support of its 

mission. The FAA’s retrieval of these 

records by unique identifier may only 

occur for administrative purposes. 

Rarely, the FAA may retrieve records 

from the system by unique identifier to 

respond to external criminal law 

investigation requests, or as part of an 

FAA investigation of the operator’s 

compliance with PRD regulations. The 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
31028 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

44Specifically, 49 U.S.C. 44703(j)(4)(A) states that 

an ’’ air carrier may refuse to hire an individual as 

a pilot if the individual did not provide written 

consent for the air carrier to receive records under 

subsection (h)(2)(A) or (i)(3)(A) or did not execute 

the release from liability requested under 

subsection (h)(2)(B) or (i)(3)(B).’’ 

FAA does not retrieve pilots’ records 

from the PRD for FAA enforcement or 

investigative purposes related to the 

pilots themselves. 

However, the Department is 

committed to ensuring that these 

sensitive records are managed in a 

manner consistent with the Privacy Act 

and the Fair Information Practice 

Principles, and will protect the records 

in accordance with the Departmental 

Privacy Risk Management Policy, DOT 

Order 1351.18 and applicable Office of 

Management and Budget Guidance for 

the protection of personally identifiable 

information. 

The FAA also adopts the requirement 

for review of records related to an 

aviation accident or incident as 

proposed. The FAA explained in the 

NPRM that including accident and 

incident data in the PRD would provide 

a more holistic historical record of a 

pilot, when combined with the other 

records proposed to be reported to the 

PRD by operators that previously 

employed the pilot. The FAA has the 

authority to identify, gather, and share 

that data, and has determined that doing 

so in the PRD is consistent with the PRD 

Act. 

The FAA enters a pilot’s preemployment and non-FAA drug and 

alcohol history into the PRD; however, 

these are not FAA records. Instead, the 

respective employer that conducted the 

test or determined the violation 

occurred is responsible for the records. 

The FAA adopts § 111.135 with no 

substantive changes, but with minor 

edits, for clarity. 

7. Sections Not Adopted 

i. Refusal To Hire and Release From 

Liability 

In accordance with the statutory 

requirement set forth in 49 U.S.C. 

44703(i), the FAA proposed permitting 

hiring employers to require a pilot to 

execute a release from liability for any 

claim arising from use of the PRD in 

accordance with the regulations. The 

FAA also noted that the release from 

liability would not apply to any 

improper use of the PRD, as described 

in the proposed regulation. The FAA 

also proposed to permit an air carrier or 

operator to refuse to hire a pilot if the 

pilot does not provide consent to the 

operator to evaluate the pilot’s records 

or if the pilot does not execute a release 

from liability for any claims arising from 

proper use of the PRD by the operator. 

The proposed regulatory text also 

prohibited a pilot from bringing any 

action or proceeding against a hiring 

employer for a refusal to hire the pilot 

for any reason described in this section. 

ii. Comments Received 

A4A commented that the liability 

release provision proposed in the NPRM 

in § 111.125 reflects the current and 

appropriate requirements, by providing 

a release from liability except where 

information is known to be false and 

maintained in violation of a criminal 

statute. Additionally, A4A contended 

the proposal provides reasonable 

protections, which the PRD Act does not 

require, for refusal to hire a pilot that 

does not provide consent or liability 

release requested by a carrier. A4A 

suggested that the FAA clarify that 

carriers can determine the process by 

which a release is obtained from the 

pilot and not foreclose future options. 

NBAA commented that release from 

liability provisions apply only with 

respect to the entry of covered data and 

covered entities; in this regard, air 

carriers are not given immunity if they 

overreach by entering data that goes 

beyond the statute. NBAA 

recommended the FAA align the 

proposed regulation with existing laws 

and include additional provisions to 

protect employers required to submit 

records to the database. NBAA also 

expressed concern that part 111 

improperly regulates the employeremployee relationship and could be 

inconsistent with State employment 

laws. 

iii. FAA Response 

The FAA does not have the authority 

to expand the release beyond what is 

described explicitly by statute. Only 

Congress can establish statutory liability 

release provisions. Furthermore, 

Congress required the FAA to establish 

the PRD. The FAA is not aware of State 

law that would affect FAA regulation of 

a Federal database for pilot records. 

Further, as discussed in the NPRM, 

the FAA recognizes that 49 CFR 40.27 

prohibits employers from having their 

employees execute any release ‘‘with 

respect to any part of the drug or alcohol 

testing process.’’ However, the FAA 

considers drug and alcohol testing 

records stored in the PRD to be outside 

the testing process for the purpose of 

DOT enforcement. Therefore, drug and 

alcohol testing records stored in and 

supplied by the PRD are not excluded 

from the liability release set forth in the 

statute. 

The FAA does not adopt the proposed 

provisions. Upon further review, the 

FAA determined that memorializing 

these statutory requirements in 

regulation is unnecessary. Title 49 

U.S.C. 44703(j) refers to ‘‘written 

consent’’.44 The FAA considers the 

consent requirements of §§ 111.120 and 

111.310 to constitute the consent that 

section 44703(j) intends. A court could 

cite this statute in determining that a 

litigant does not have standing to bring 

a claim, but codifying a regulation to 

further memorialize the provision is not 

necessary. 

C. Subpart C—Reporting of Records by 

Operators 

1. Applicability—Section 111.200 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed that 

certain operators would be required to 

report records to the PRD, in accordance 

with the statute. The FAA adopts this 

section substantively as proposed, with 

edits for consistency with other parts of 

the regulatory text throughout this 

section and with additional text. 

In this section, the FAA adds 

compliance dates for when reporting of 

records to the PRD begins. The FAA 

expects to be able to accept industry 

records beginning June 10, 2022. As 

such, operators currently engaging in 

operations, or that initiate operations 

prior to June 10, 2022, must begin 

reporting new records described by 

§ 111.205(b)(1) on June 10, 2022. 

Operators initiating operations after that 

date must begin complying with the 

PRD within 30 days of receiving their 

operations specifications. Historical 

record reporting falls on a different 

timeline and the FAA states in this 

section that the schedule for historical 

record reporting is set forth in § 111.255. 

Comments regarding the compliance 

timeline for reporting historical records 

are found in Section V.E. 

2. Reporting Requirements—Section 

111.205 

In § 111.205, the FAA proposed 

general requirements for compliance 

with subpart C. The proposal required 

operators subject to part 111 to report 

new records about a pilot it employs as 

well as historical records about a pilot 

currently or previously employed. 

Proposed § 111.205 would prohibit 

inclusion of the information not 

permitted to be entered into the PRD as 

described in § 111.245. 

The FAA amends the proposal 

concerning § 111.205 to add the PRD 

date of hire to the list of information 

that an operator is required to enter 

about a pilot. Otherwise, this section is 

adopted substantively as proposed. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31029 

45 85 FR 17678 (March 30, 2020). The questions 

included: 

1. What level of detail (e.g., training completion 

dates or the pilot’s entire training record including 

each activity/task and outcome) do operators keep 

for historical pilot records dating back to August 1, 

2005 and how accurately do the data requirements 

outlined in Table 3 reflect that level of detail? 

2. Are air carriers or operators maintaining other 

relevant records used by an air carrier or operator 

in making a hiring decision that the FAA has not 

considered or not chosen to include as a historic 

data requirement in this proposal? 

3. What amount of effort do employers perceive 

will be involved in reviewing the historic data and 

structuring it into an XML format? The FAA would 

also welcome information from any employers that 

do not intend to use the back-end XML solution? 

4. How quickly do air carriers and other operators 

believe they will be able to migrate their PRIA 

records into the PRD? 

5. Would it be helpful from either a pilot or a 

hiring employer’s perspective to include a text box 

(with a limited character count) for a pilot to be able 

to provide a narrative explanation of further 

information concerning a historical record? Would 

this also be helpful for present-day records? 

Comments relating to the applicability 

of the reporting requirements of part 111 

are discussed primarily in Section IV.B. 

3. Format for Reporting Information— 

Section 111.210 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed that 

operators would have to report 

information to the PRD in a form and 

manner prescribed by the 

Administrator. 

i. Comments Received 

A4A took issue with the fact that the 

proposed rule creates a database of pilot 

record summaries, not of pilot records. 

A4A said summaries are contrary to the 

PRD statute, which requires an 

electronic database for records ‘‘that are 

maintained by the air carrier.’’ A4A 

added that this is an arbitrary and 

capricious reversal of the FAA’s own 

interpretation of what constitutes a 

‘‘record’’ and substantially increases the 

costs of the proposed regulation while 

reducing the quality and quantity of 

information available in the PRD as 

compared to the PRIA record exchange 

program. A4A was especially concerned 

about the proposed requirement to input 

summaries of historical records, rather 

than scans of the records themselves. 

A4A stated that the FAA should provide 

the option to upload images of entire 

documents rather than relying on 

summaries. 

A4A contends that the PRD does not 

provide potential employers with the 

level of comprehensive information 

Congress intended and that PRIA 

provides currently. A4A noted that 

under PRIA, a hiring carrier would 

receive the pilot’s record and could 

review any incidents demonstrating that 

a pilot has difficulty with crew resource 

management, even if the final 

disciplinary action is removed from the 

record via settlement. Under the 

proposed rule, however, that 

information would not be captured in 

the PRD because if a settlement 

overturns a disciplinary action, the 

entire record related to that action 

would be excluded from the PRD. 

Moreover, A4A noted, once PRIA 

sunsets, those records will be 

permanently inaccessible to potential 

employers. 

A4A noted the NPRM provides no 

technical information on how an 

employer must report extensive pilot 

records into the PRD; therefore, the 

public cannot provide precise 

information on the potential impact of 

this regulation without having the 

technical requirements to report 

information into the PRD. A4A 

recommended that the FAA consider 

offering both XML and JSON formats as 

standards for bulk data transfer and 

engage carrier technical representatives. 

A4A further recommended that the FAA 

provide carrier representatives with 

information on the lessons learned by 

the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration in the Commercial 

Driver’s License Drug and Alcohol 

Clearinghouse. RAA requested that a 

guide to XML be provided to PRD users 

at the close of the comment period, or 

at the earliest possible time. A4A also 

asked for technical clarification on how 

bulk records should be uploaded to the 

PRD. 

Ameristar and Atlas Air also 

expressed concerns about the format for 

uploading records, stating that it would 

affect the timing and cost of compliance. 

Ameristar notes that the definition of 

‘‘report to the PRD’’ is open-ended. 

The National Air Transportation 

Association (NATA) recommended that 

the FAA extend the historical period for 

data transmission and allow the 

uploading of original documents. NATA 

stated that only 12% of carriers are 

using electronic pilot records, and the 

significant majority of recordkeeping 

systems do not have the ability to create 

an XML program to sweep up the data 

fields for transmission. NATA stated 

that it expects a large number of part 

135 carriers to use manual entry, and 

that rushing could cause unnecessary 

errors that would be difficult to correct 

and only discovered in pilot disputes. 

Ameristar stated the PRD should 

allow text submissions of historical 

records, noting the wide availability of 

the ASCII format. The commenter also 

recommended all historical records be 

allowed in the format in which the 

carrier maintained those records. 

In the NPRM, the FAA requested 

comments on five questions related to 

the input of historical records.45 RAA 

commented that it is difficult to answer 

Question 3 until an example of the 

proposed XML data transfer format is 

available for testing. Also responding to 

Question 3, CAPA stated there should 

be an opportunity for the public to make 

additional comments if the FAA 

chooses to collect any type of historical 

record not previously mentioned. 

In response to Question 5, RAA stated 

that a text box could be useful in 

providing narrative explanations for 

historical records, but risks providing 

unneeded information to the receiving 

carrier. RAA suggested that the FAA 

could limit this through a drop-down 

menu. Also responding to Question 5, 

CAPA stated that this question is 

confusing because under the NPRM a 

pilot would already have an opportunity 

to correct inaccurate data. CAPA further 

stated that the FAA should clarify its 

intention, and also asked whether there 

would be one data package to correct 

the entire package, one per section, or 

some other arrangement. 

The Families of Continental Flight 

3407 emphasized that the database will 

only be as effective as the quality of the 

data entered into it and that there will 

need to be a continuous quality control 

process in place as the database is put 

into operation. These commenters 

called on the FAA and all stakeholders 

to make their best possible effort in this 

regard. 

A4A also said the final rule should 

clarify the requirement for most records 

to be reported ‘‘within 30 days’’ of the 

event, and that the rule does not 

prohibit submission of information after 

30 days. 

ii. FAA Response 

Section 111.210 is adopted as 

proposed. The FAA provides a 

description of an initial means of 

compliance for the format for reporting 

information in AC 20–68J 

accompanying this rule. 

The NPRM proposed that operators 

summarize the information from a 

pilot’s record, rather than submitting the 

actual records to the PRD. Table 3 of the 

NPRM outlined the data elements 

necessary to include in the summary. 

The FAA acknowledged that many 

operators have maintained records in 

accordance with PRIA in varying 

degrees of detail, so the FAA’s intent 

with requiring submission of a summary 

rather than an original record was to 

create a standardized process and best 

practice for obtaining the relevant 

information. Further, the NPRM stated 

that clearly defining the specific data 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
31030 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

elements in this proposed rule would 

enable reporting entities to refine the 

information included in the PRD that 

hiring operators find most useful for 

hiring decisions, rather than entering all 

data maintained on an individual pilot 

throughout his or her career. Lastly, 

requiring records to be entered in a 

standardized format is consistent with 

NTSB Recommendations A–10–17 and 

A–10–19. 

The FAA confirms in this action that 

the summary approach would be used 

for current, future, and historical 

records. The FAA reaffirms the NPRM 

discussion on the data elements and 

information required for the summaries 

which emphasized that the summary 

approach was taken specifically to 

improve the quality of the information 

submitted to the PRD. The FAA notes, 

with respect to A4A’s comment 

regarding subsequently overturned 

disciplinary actions, that the PRD Act 

and PRIA share identical language with 

respect to excluding disciplinary actions 

that were subsequently overturned. 

While the PRD Act requires that air 

carriers and certain other persons report 

information ‘‘to the Administrator 

promptly for entry into the database’’ 

with regard to any individual used as a 

pilot in their operations, the PRD Act 

leaves the FAA discretion to determine 

the means by which the information is 

to be reported to the FAA for inclusion 

in the PRD. The FAA further 

acknowledged in the NPRM that 

requiring summaries rather than records 

differed from the current process under 

PRIA, stating that unlike the current 

process under PRIA, the proposed 

requirements ensure the standardized 

collection of and access to safety data 

regarding disciplinary actions by clearly 

defining the type of event, the type of 

disciplinary action, timeframes for data 

entry, and specific data that must be 

reported to the PRD for evaluation by a 

future employer. As discussed in the 

NPRM, the FAA’s role concerning PRIA 

and PRD are vastly different. The 

provisions of PRIA were selfimplementing and the FAA’s role in the 

PRIA process limited. The FAA did not 

develop implementing regulations for 

PRIA. The PRIA process generally 

involved only three parties for industry 

records: The potential employer, the 

past employer, and the pilot-applicant. 

In contrast, the PRD Act requires the 

Administrator to promulgate regulations 

to establish an electronic pilot records 

database containing records from the 

FAA and records maintained by air 

carriers and other operators that employ 

pilots. 

Limiting the data elements available 

to hiring employers is critical because 

the PRD requires the FAA to ensure 

pilot privacy is protected. Because the 

Administrator cannot effectively review 

for quality control every record that an 

operator may upload to the PRD, the 

FAA proposed requiring standardized 

formats for such records. By using such 

formats, the PRD will ensure that 

specific data points are validated at the 

time of record upload. Accordingly, the 

FAA has used its discretion to 

determine that, specific to the PRD and 

its broad coverage of records and 

mandate to protect pilot privacy, a 

summary of that information rather than 

wholesale submission of the underlying 

records provides the most efficient, 

standardized, and succinct vehicle to 

meet Congressional intent concerning 

the information reported to the PRD and 

the privacy protections the FAA must 

afford pilots. Therefore, the FAA 

disagrees with the commenters who 

indicated the PRD should contain 

images or scans of the original records. 

The FAA will make available two 

primary methods for entering records 

into the PRD: Manual entry and an 

electronic record upload. The manual 

method will be accessed via the PRD 

website. The reporting entity will be 

presented with a form to complete after 

selecting the pilot and what type of 

record is to be entered. The second 

method of loading records will be via an 

electronic transfer using a data format 

such as XML. The FAA originally 

considered allowing a large text block to 

be uploaded for historical records in the 

interest of expediting data upload. 

However, after additional consideration, 

such a block would make the record far 

less useful to a reviewing entity. If the 

information cannot be properly 

categorized, identified, and read by a 

person to understand the salient facts of 

the record, there is diminished value for 

providing the record to the PRD. A 

reporting entity may use either or both 

methods, as long as the entity does not 

load the same record via both methods. 

The manual method will be available 

for use when the requirement to enter 

records becomes effective. This will 

allow reporting entities to begin 

entering records pursuant to the 

schedule described in the regulation. 

Shortly after the final rule is published, 

the FAA will begin finalizing the 

electronic record reporting format and 

keep industry informed of those efforts. 

The FAA expects to develop a format 

that will accommodate the most 

efficient industry adoption. As the PRD 

system matures and recordkeeping 

systems advance, electronic transfer 

may become the primary method of 

loading records into the PRD for many 

reporting entities. Detailed instructions 

for using both methods will be 

described in AC 120–68J and other PRD 

user guides. 

The FAA confirms that while 

reporting records beyond the 30-day 

timeline may be possible technically, 

doing so is inconsistent with the 

regulatory requirement to report records 

within 30 days when reporting in 

accordance with § 111.215(a). 

The FAA removed the proposed 

regulatory definition of ‘‘report to the 

PRD’’ because the requirement is 

inherent in the regulation itself. By 

following the requirements of part 111, 

the operator is reporting to the PRD. 

4. Method of Reporting—Section 

111.215 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed that 

all records would be uploaded within 

30 days of record creation. As 

mentioned previously in Section IV.C, 

this rule adds a method of reporting 

records under subpart B for certain 

operators. New § 111.215 now offers the 

option for some operators to report 

certain pilot records to the database 

upon request from a hiring operator. 

The FAA considered comments 

regarding the number of pilots who will 

transition from corporate flight 

departments, air tour operations, or 

PAO (‘‘PAC operators’’) to employment 

with a reviewing entity, and determined 

that many pilots will not make that 

transition or not change employers 

during the course of their careers. The 

FAA recognizes that many pilots view 

employment with the PAC operators as 

a career destination, not a gateway to 

service with a reviewing entity. 

PAC operators may upload records for 

pilots they employ upon request instead 

of reporting all records automatically. 

The request mechanism will be built 

into the PRD as an automatic function. 

This upload-upon-request framework is 

subject to three exceptions. First, 

reporting upon request is not applicable 

for air tour operators’ drug and alcohol 

records subject to 14 CFR part 120. 

Those records are subject to the 

reporting timeline for that section and 

must be reported contemporaneous with 

the receipt of each such record. Second, 

PAC operators must report separation 

from employment records which reflect 

termination of the pilot’s employment, 

either due to pilot performance or due 

to professional disqualification, to the 

database within 30 days of record 

creation. Third, PAC operators must 

report disciplinary action records to the 

database where the outcome is a 

suspension from piloting an aircraft for 

any amount of time. 

The FAA understands that different 

employers have different disciplinary 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31031 

programs and the same action may be 

referred to with different terminology. 

The threshold consideration for 

determining whether an operator must 

report a disciplinary action record upon 

creation of the record is whether the 

pilot was no longer permitted for any 

period of time to pilot an aircraft during 

flight operations. The FAA considers 

such separation from employment and 

disciplinary actions as among the most 

significant events for a reviewing entity 

to consider when determining whether 

to employ a pilot. Therefore, the burden 

imposed by requiring PAC operators to 

report a certain record upon receipt or 

creation of the record will ensure 

reviewing entities have the most 

important records regardless of whether 

a pilot, in violation of the regulation, 

omits operators from his or her list of 

previous employers. 

Aside from the three exceptions 

discussed, this rule requires the 

reporting of any remaining records held 

by a PAC operator only upon request 

from a hiring employer. To ensure no 

gap exists in pilot employment history, 

the FAA revises § 111.310 to require 

pilots to update their employment 

history dating back five years at the time 

of granting consent to the operator. 

Under § 111.105, the hiring employer 

must compare this history against the 

available records; if the database 

indicates that further records are 

available, the hiring operator will be 

able to generate a request through the 

PRD to the prior or current employer for 

upload. If a request is sent to a pilot’s 

former employer and that former 

employer has no further records about 

an individual pilot, the former employer 

should report that no further records are 

available. The FAA envisions that even 

if no other records exist for an 

individual pilot (because the operator 

did not keep any training records, as 

discussed in Section V.C or because the 

pilot was not ever subject to 

disciplinary action) a separation from 

employment date might still exist for 

that pilot. If the separation from 

employment record was the result of a 

termination, the record would already 

be uploaded contemporaneously in the 

PRD; however, if the separation was not 

the result of a termination, a last-in-time 

date should still be entered into the PRD 

upon request, in order to populate the 

database with information about a 

pilot’s employment history. 

PAC operators are also required to 

maintain any records reserved for 

reporting upon request for five years or 

until otherwise reported to the PRD to 

ensure they are available for review by 

a hiring employer. This section includes 

a requirement that these operators and 

entities continue to report records they 

would have furnished in accordance 

with a PRIA request to the PRD upon 

receipt of that request. This provision 

addresses any gap that would occur for 

records held by an operator complying 

with § 111.215(b) and reporting records 

on request. That group of operators is 

the same as those not required to report 

historical records. There are 

approximately three years of records 

that such operators would have 

continued to provide under PRIA but for 

its sunset. This provision requires that 

those operators upload those records to 

the PRD in the event a request is 

received. 

For records required to be reported 

contemporaneously under § 111.215(a), 

both disciplinary action records and 

separation from employment records 

must be reported within 30 days of the 

date the record would be considered 

‘‘final’’ by the operator as noted in 

§ 111.230 and 111.235, which contain 

the requirements for reporting such 

records. 

5. Drug and Alcohol Testing Records— 

Section 111.220 

As proposed in the NPRM, operators 

that must comply with 14 CFR part 120 

are required to report certain records 

concerning drug testing and alcohol 

misuse to the PRD. Operators must 

report all drug test results verified 

positive by a Medical Review Officer 

(MRO), any alcohol test result with a 

confirmed breath alcohol concentration 

of 0.04 or greater, any refusal to submit 

to drug or alcohol testing, any record 

pertaining to an occurrence of on-duty 

alcohol use, pre-duty alcohol use, or 

alcohol use following an accident, all 

return-to-duty drug and alcohol test 

results, and all follow-up drug and 

alcohol test results. This rule adopts the 

requirement to report such records to 

the PRD, as proposed; however, the 

FAA has updated some language within 

this section for clarity. 

i. Comments Received 

The FAA received comments on the 

proposed requirement to report drug 

and alcohol testing records to the PRD 

from NTSB, Ameristar, RAA, NATA, 

and A4A. 

While commenters expressed support 

for the proposed inclusion of records 

regarding a pilot’s drug and alcohol 

violation history in the PRD, some 

commenters requested clarification on 

which records they must report. For 

example, commenters asked whether 

they must report non-DOT testing 

records and whether they must report 

all negative and non-negative testing 

records for all types of tests. 

Commenters also sought clarification on 

the proposal to include all negative and 

non-negative return-to-duty test results 

in the PRD, as commenters read the text 

as excluding this requirement. Some 

commenters remarked that the inclusion 

of negative return-to-duty test results 

has little value for an operator’s hiring 

determination. Some commenters stated 

the drug and alcohol testing regulations 

do not require an employer to maintain 

negative return-to-duty tests for longer 

than one year. 

Commenters requested clarification 

on the regulatory references to 

recordkeeping requirements in this 

section, stating that some were specific 

to requirements of the MRO rather than 

the employer. One commenter asked 

whether the retention periods require 

expunging the records maintained in the 

PRD in accordance with 14 CFR part 

120, and if so, how to do this. 

A4A added that the FAA already has 

measures to prevent an air carrier from 

hiring an individual with drug or 

alcohol violations, and that providing 

this information would be duplicative of 

FAA records that already show such 

violations. Specifically, A4A referenced 

the requirement (under 14 CFR part 120) 

to report certain drug and alcohol 

violations to the Federal Air Surgeon 

and the potential for resulting certificate 

actions. A4A also stated that a positive 

return-to-duty test would permanently 

disqualify a pilot from holding an FAA 

pilot certificate, while a pilot that is 

already performing pilot functions for 

another air carrier would already have 

been subject to the return-to-duty 

requirement and received a negative 

return-to-duty test, so those negative 

outcomes would already be known to an 

operator. 

ii. FAA Response 

In the NPRM, the FAA included the 

requirement to report to the PRD 

substituted or adulterated drug test 

results with verified positive drug test 

results. To harmonize the final rule with 

49 CFR 40.191(b), the FAA corrects this 

reference by including these results in 

the reporting requirement of 

§ 111.220(a)(1)(ii) as refusals to submit 

to testing. 

The FAA proposed to require 

operators to report all return-to-duty 

and follow-up test results to the PRD, as 

the review of return-to-duty and followup test results are critical to an 

operator’s hiring decision. The FAA 

believes excluding these tests from PRD 

would provide an incomplete picture of 

a pilot’s drug and alcohol history to 

employers making a hiring decision 

about a known violator. Return-to-duty 

and follow-up tests are directly related 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
31032 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

46See 49 CFR part 40, subpart O. 47 49 U.S.C. 44703(i)(2)(B)(i)(II)–(III). 

48The FAA uses the term ‘‘check pilot’’ 

throughout part 111 and this preamble to refer also 

to the duties and responsibilities of a check airman. 

to an individual’s rehabilitation process, 

and as described in the NPRM, 

including these records will allow a 

hiring employer to see more specifically 

where an individual is in their 

treatment and return-to-duty process. 

This information is critical for an 

operator’s hiring decision, as a pilot 

cannot perform flight crewmember 

duties for an operator under part 121, 

part 135, or § 91.147 until the return-toduty process is complete.46

All pilot records (including 

documentation of return-to-duty testing) 

must be maintained for at least 5 years 

under 49 CFR 40.333(a)(1) and 49 U.S.C. 

44703(h)(4). Therefore, operators will 

have maintained these records for at 

least that amount of time. The PRD Act 

also specifically requires inclusion of 

records kept under PRIA as of the date 

of enactment of the statute, which 

would include drug and alcohol testing 

records from that time period as well. 

This rule contains revised regulatory 

text to note the requirement to report all 

negative and non-negative drug and 

alcohol return-to-duty test results to the 

PRD. 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed that 

records related to on-duty use, pre-duty 

use, and use following an accident 

would be included in a pilot’s 

disciplinary action record in the PRD. 

The NPRM also proposed to require an 

employer to enter a detailed summary of 

the violation. Upon further 

consideration, the FAA determined 

records of on-duty use, pre-duty use, 

and use following an accident must be 

included in the pilot’s drug and alcohol 

history as alcohol misuse violations 

under part 120 of this chapter instead of 

the pilot’s disciplinary action record. 

This will ensure an accurate display of 

a pilot’s drug and alcohol history and 

will allow a hiring employer to 

determine whether a pilot is 

professionally qualified to perform 

flight crewmember duties. When 

entering alcohol misuse violations that 

do not include a test result in the PRD, 

the employer will need to input the 

report type and date of occurrence. 

Because a hiring employer that intends 

to hire an airman must obtain records of 

the occurrence from the previous 

employer in accordance with part 40, no 

further explanation of the violation is 

necessary in the PRD. 

This rule also adds regulatory 

citations as they relate to drug and 

alcohol recordkeeping requirements, 

ensuring the rule references 14 CFR part 

120 and 49 CFR part 40 for a regulated 

employer and MRO, where appropriate. 

For example, in many cases, only the 

employer has the information, such as 

alcohol test results and in refusal 

determinations without a test result. 

The process required by part 40 for an 

employer to obtain records covered by 

that part will still exist, and is in 

addition to the records available in the 

PRD. If an operator discovers a drug or 

alcohol violation record in an airman’s 

PAR and decides to hire the airman, the 

operator must obtain information that 

the airman has subsequently complied 

with the return-to-duty requirements of 

49 CFR part 40, subpart O, in 

accordance with 49 CFR 40.25(e). In 

accordance with the drug and alcohol 

testing regulations, a hiring employer 

cannot hire an airman to perform a 

safety-sensitive function if the employer 

is aware that the individual has violated 

the testing regulations and cannot 

obtain documentation that the 

individual has met the return-to-duty 

requirements of part 40, subpart O or 

part 120. 

Because the PRD will not provide a 

hiring operator with return-to-duty 

documentation or actual test results, the 

operator must obtain documentation of 

the airman’s successful completion of 

the DOT return-to-duty requirements 

(including initial and follow-up reports 

from the Substance Abuse Professional 

(SAP), the follow-up testing plan, and 

results for any return-to-duty and 

follow-up tests). The airman must 

provide the records that the airman is 

authorized to have, or the operator must 

obtain the airman’s specific release of 

information consent to the former 

employer where the violation occurred, 

as required by 49 CFR 40.321 and 

formerly under the PRIA. AC 120–68J 

includes a sample release form (FAA 

Form 8060–12) to aid a hiring operator 

with requesting an airman’s drug and 

alcohol records from the airman’s 

previous employer(s). 

Lastly, in response to A4A’s comment 

that the FAA already has measures to 

prevent a reviewing entity from hiring 

an individual with a drug or alcohol 

violation, the PRD Act requires the FAA 

to include drug and alcohol records in 

the PRD as records maintained by the 

reporting entity.47 The FAA does not 

have discretion to adjust the 

requirement. Further, drug and alcohol 

violation reports sent to the Federal Air 

Surgeon are not indefinitely available to 

the FAA. For example, if the FAA does 

not proceed with enforcement action, 

the record is expunged and is no longer 

part of the individual’s violation history 

in the FAA’s enforcement system (EIS). 

The violation still stands and the 

individual still needs to go through the 

return-to-duty process, but there is no 

certificate action detected. In response 

to the statement regarding permanent 

disqualification, the FAA asserts that 

specific qualifications must be met to 

trigger the permanent disqualification 

provisions under §§ 120.111(e) and 

120.221(b). A verified positive return-toduty test will not trigger these 

provisions automatically. 

6. Training, Qualification, and 

Proficiency Records—Section 111.225 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to 

require all operators complying with 

subpart C of part 111 to provide 

training, qualification, and proficiency 

records to the PRD. Under the proposed 

rule, employers would enter records 

maintained in accordance with 

established FAA regulations related to 

pilot training, qualifications, and 

proficiency events. In addition, the FAA 

proposed to require employers to enter 

records demonstrating an individual’s 

compliance with FAA or employerrequired ‘‘training, checking, testing, 

currency, proficiency, or other events 

related to pilot performance’’ that may 

be kept by covered employers. 

As proposed in § 111.220(c), the 

minimum data required to be reported 

by all populations included the date of 

the event, aircraft type, duty position 

(PIC or SIC), training program approval 

part and subpart, the crewmember 

training or qualification curriculum and 

category as reflected in the FAAapproved or employer-mandated 

training program, the result of the action 

(satisfactory or unsatisfactory), and 

limited comments from a check pilot, if 

appropriate.48 The FAA also proposed 

to exclude certain records from the 

reporting requirements. Specifically, 

under the proposal, the PRD would not 

include records related to flight time, 

duty time, and rest time; records 

demonstrating compliance with 

physical examination requirements or 

any other protected medical records; 

records documenting aeronautical 

experience; and records identified in 

§ 111.245, the provision that identifies 

certain voluntarily-submitted safety 

program records. 

NBAA, ALPA, CAPA, A4A, RAA, 

CAA, the Families of Continental Flight 

3407, Cummins, Inc., Ameristar, Atlas 

Air, and many individuals commented 

on the proposed requirement to report 

training, qualification, and proficiency 

records. Most of these comments 

addressed the proposed requirement to 

include check pilot comments from 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31033 

49For purposes of this rule and as reflected in the 

database, the FAA is using the term ‘‘training 

event’’ broadly to include training activity, 

checking and evaluation activities, and operating 

experience under the supervision of a check airman 

or evaluator. 50 49 U.S.C. 44703(i)(2)(B)(ii)(I). 

51The draft PRD AC published along with the 

NPRM on March 30, 2020, and is available in the 

docket at https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document?D=FAA-2020-0246-0006. The final PRD 

AC 120–68J will be available in the rulemaking 

docket. 

training events, to which some 

commenters objected. Commenters also 

addressed the reporting of records 

related to recurrent training, continuing 

qualification training under an 

Advanced Qualification Program (AQP), 

the reporting of aeronautical experience 

records, the lack of standardization in 

training records, and other issues 

related to the reporting of training 

records. 

i. Comments Received Regarding 

Inclusion of Check Pilot Comments 

NBAA, ALPA, CAPA, RAA, CAE, 

Cummins, Inc., and several individual 

commenters recommended that the FAA 

remove the proposed requirement to 

report check pilot comments from 

training events.49 These commenters 

contended that requiring the reporting 

of check pilot comments would have a 

chilling effect on training and safety. 

Commenters also noted the subjective 

nature of such comments and 

highlighted the effect such comments 

could have on a pilot’s career. 

Ameristar suggested the FAA publish 

an advisory circular or appendix to the 

rule to detail how instructors and check 

airman should write comments 

regarding a pilot’s performance to 

achieve objectivity. Ameristar provided 

examples of such comments. 

Noting that unflattering check or 

instructor pilot comments may cost 

pilots future job opportunities and leave 

check pilots or their employers open to 

liability, NBAA said the statement of 

non-liability should specifically protect 

the check or instructor pilot against 

civil, administrative, and criminal 

claims. NATA also requested 

clarification on the liability protections 

for current and past employers entering 

required data into the PRD, not just new 

employers. 

A4A recommended the FAA clarify 

that comments on pilot performance 

should only be entered into the PRD 

when made by a check pilot during 

evaluation events or during validation 

events in AQP continuing qualification 

(CQ). 

ii. FAA Response 

The FAA revised parts of this section 

for clarity, as set forth in the discussion 

that follows, and re-numbered this 

section, which the NPRM had proposed 

to designate as § 111.220. 

The FAA is mindful of all comments 

received on the inclusion of check pilot 

comments in the PRD. As discussed in 

the NPRM, the FAA is required by 

statute 50 to include in the PRD records 

pertaining to ‘‘the training, 

qualifications, proficiency, or 

professional competence of the 

individual, including comments and 

evaluations made by a check airman.’’ 

Because the PRD is intended to improve 

the information sharing that occurs 

under PRIA, the FAA is careful not to 

reduce the benefits provided and 

instead to improve upon the PRIA 

system. Under PRIA, training, 

qualification, and proficiency records 

are provided wholesale to requesting 

operators. The FAA does not expect 

employers would redact portions of the 

particular records and provide the 

records in their entirety to the requester. 

Thus, under PRIA, hiring operators are 

able to see check pilots’ comments in 

the record. These comments will 

provide a hiring operator information 

that helps in understanding the salient 

details of a qualification or proficiency 

event. The FAA removed ‘‘subpart K’’ 

from § 111.225 as adopted because the 

FAA expects that any comments by the 

person administering a proficiency 

check conducted under § 61.58 will also 

be reported to the PRD to the extent an 

operator is keeping records related to 

that section. This approach is consistent 

with the reporting required for other 

specified proficiency events 

administered by check pilots or 

evaluators such as for parts 121, 135, or 

125. If the check required by § 61.58 is 

unsatisfactory, the tasks or maneuvers 

not completed satisfactorily will also be 

entered if maintained by the covered 

employer. 

Some commenters suggested the FAA 

provide guidance regarding how the 

check pilots should draft comments. 

The FAA has not determined that 

comments from check pilots are 

generally problematic or that additional 

industry guidance is needed. Check 

pilots have entered comments as needed 

for years and have been guided by their 

approved training programs regarding 

what is appropriate to enter as a 

comment in a record. The requirement 

to report comments into the PRD does 

not alter existing processes that 

operators use when creating the original 

record. 

A commenter expressed concern 

about inclusion of comments from 

instructors in the PRD. As described in 

the NPRM, the PRD will not include 

instructor comments but will instead 

collect records relating to the 

completion of training curricula. The 

FAA provides substantial supporting 

guidance, such as AC 120–68J and the 

PRD record entry functionality itself, to 

designate which records may include 

check pilot comments when entered 

into the PRD. 

Additionally, to the extent 

commenters have raised concerns about 

liability, this rule does not extend the 

statutory liability protection to cover 

inclusion of check pilot comments 

because this liability protection is 

already provided via a specific 

provision in the PRD Act itself. 

iii. Comments Received Regarding 

Inclusion of AQP Validation Events 

The NTSB, A4A, RAA, CAA, and the 

Families of Continental Flight 3407 

sought clarification on which records 

from training programs approved in 

accordance with an AQP must be 

reported to the PRD. 

The NTSB asserted that the Draft PRD 

AC51 states that operators using a 

training program approved in 

accordance with an AQP would be 

required to enter into the PRD specific 

information about a pilot’s qualification 

items completed through the AQP, but 

the language in the NPRM is not clear 

in this regard. The NTSB said the FAA 

should ensure the final rule contains 

language that specifies which AQP 

items, including but not limited to those 

referenced in the Draft PRD AC, must be 

reported to the PRD. The NTSB also said 

it does not support the proposal to 

exclude AQP ‘‘validation events’’ from 

the PRD reporting requirement, stating 

that it recognizes that ‘‘many validation 

events . . . are used to improve and add 

quality to the training program,’’ but 

several AQP validation events contain 

evaluation elements that assess an 

individual’s performance and 

proficiency (using a rating or score) and 

must be administered by an evaluator. 

The NTSB opined that the inclusion of 

the records of such events in the PRD is 

consistent with the overall intent of the 

NPRM. The NTSB recommended that 

the FAA ensure that the final rule 

requires PRD reporting for AQP 

evaluation elements that assess an 

individual’s performance and 

proficiency, including but not limited to 

maneuver validations (MV), line 

operational evaluations (LOE), and line 

checks. The Families of Continental 

Flight 3407 concurred with the NTSB’s 

comment, noted that it is critical to 

include AQP ‘‘validation events’’ that 

assess an individual’s performance and 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
31034 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

proficiency to ensure that the overall 

safety intent of the PRD is met. The 

commenter urged the FAA to close these 

AQP-related loopholes as it finalizes the 

proposed rule. 

A4A noted the FAA addressed 

reasons not to include AQP validations 

and validation comments in both the 

preamble (at 85 FR 17680) and the Draft 

PRD AC (at paragraph 10.1.2.5). A4A 

asserted those negative effects are 

limited to qualification courses. A4A 

went on to say the industry believes 

there is value in including CQ 

validations and comments in the PRD. 

CAA, A4A, and RAA sought 

clarification on how continuing 

qualification training under AQP should 

be accounted for in the PRD. The 

commenters noted that many AQPs 

have a cycle of reviewing all required 

task elements in 24-month or 36-month 

increments, during which pilots will 

attend several simulator training 

sessions that conclude in either an MV 

or LOE. The commenters asked FAA to 

clarify whether continuing qualification 

MV under subpart Y and the training 

session associated with 

§ 121.441(a)(1)(ii)(B) ‘‘simulator course 

training’’ should be reported to the PRD. 

Commenters recommended the FAA 

name the events that must be uploaded 

to the PRD. A4A and RAA listed the 

events they believe should be uploaded 

to the PRD. For subpart Y of part 121 

(Advanced Qualification Program), the 

commenters stated that the following 

should be uploaded: (1) All LOEs 

associated with an initial, transition, 

upgrade, differences or a continuing 

qualification training course; and (2) all 

MVs associated with a continuing 

qualification course. For subparts N 

(Training Program) and O (Crewmember 

Qualifications) of part 121, the 

commenters stated that the following 

should be uploaded: (1) All proficiency 

checks for both initial training and 

recurrent training; and (2) all simulator 

courses of training under subpart O. The 

commenters said that, if the FAA does 

not believe this level of detail is 

appropriate for the rule, it should 

develop either an AC or Order to 

provide standardization. 

In contrast, ALPA said the FAA’s 

proposed exclusion of validation events 

(in an AQP) is an important safeguard 

of the efficacy of highly successful 

training programs and should be clearly 

stated in the regulations. Commenters 

believed that reporting validation events 

to the PRD would stifle free and open 

feedback from those administering the 

validation event. They also indicated 

that validation events are intended to 

provide feedback regarding the 

effectiveness of the training program 

and not necessarily the proficiency of 

the pilot. 

iv. FAA Response 

The FAA seeks to ensure that records 

entered into the PRD based on AQP 

provide a hiring operator with the same 

benefit as records reported under nonAQP programs. Overall, AQP validation 

events that are conducted by an 

evaluator involve an assessment of a 

pilot’s proficiency and should be made 

available to a hiring operator. While 

AQP validation events provide valuable 

feedback regarding the effectiveness of 

the training program, they are also 

designed to ensure the pilot 

demonstrates an appropriate level of 

proficiency. As such, these AQP 

validation activities constitute 

proficiency events under the language 

in § 111.225(a), and the records 

(including evaluator comments) 

associated with these AQP validation 

activities must be included in the 

database. 

After considering the comments 

received, the FAA determined that 

revision of the requirements concerning 

records of AQP validation events is 

appropriate. Some validation events, 

such as procedures validation (PV) 

conducted by an instructor in a 

qualification curriculum, do not 

constitute a proficiency event. 

Therefore, such validation events will 

not be reported individually in the 

database, but rather, will be reflected in 

the general reporting requirement 

indicating the pilot has completed the 

qualification curriculum. However, as 

noted, a PV event differs from those 

events conducted by AQP evaluators, 

such as an MV under a continuing 

qualification curriculum, which could 

provide a hiring operator with very 

meaningful information regarding an 

assessment of the pilot’s proficiency. 

This is particularly true in many CQ 

curricula. Many operators utilizing AQP 

programs will use a rotating schedule 

where the pilots complete an MV in one 

cycle and then an LOE in the next. 

Although they constitute two different 

types of events, they are both 

evaluations of pilot proficiency and thus 

must be reported to the PRD with the 

evaluator’s comments. 

AC120–68J accompanying this rule 

will specify exactly which AQP 

validation events constitute 

‘‘proficiency events’’ under § 111.225(a) 

and thus must be reported to the PRD. 

The AC will also describe which other 

AQP related records must be included, 

which would generally be completion of 

training events. The exact training 

record elements expected to be reported 

vary from employer to employer and 

may require updates over time, within 

the requirements specified by § 111.225. 

The FAA will identify in the AC the 

record elements each employer will 

enter based on the regulatory 

requirement as compared to various 

training programs and curricula. 

Commenters expressed both support 

for and opposition to including 

comments related to AQP validation 

events. Some AQP validation events 

that occur in various curricula are used 

to ensure a pilot has completed a 

knowledge or skill block before 

beginning the next. However, some AQP 

validation events provide a more 

holistic review of a pilot’s proficiency 

than other events. The FAA would 

consider the latter AQP validation 

events conducted by evaluators, such as 

MVs and LOEs, to be proficiency events; 

as a result, these AQP validation events 

could have evaluator comments entered 

in the original record. These comments 

will offer the same benefit to a 

reviewing entity as conventional check 

pilot comments. 

As a result, the final rule includes 

references to ‘‘evaluators’’—a term 

generally used in AQP—in addition to 

‘‘check pilots,’’ a term generally used in 

subparts N and O of part 121 as well as 

in part 135. Some events reported to the 

PRD would be subject to evaluation by 

a person other than a check pilot. These 

comments will be as relevant to the 

proficiency of a pilot as those comments 

made by check airmen under traditional 

training programs. The PRD Act does 

not limit the inclusion of comments 

only concerning the technical 

qualifications of a check pilot, and the 

FAA finds the inclusion of these 

comments consistent with the intent of 

the statute. 

v. Comments Regarding Aeronautical 

Experience 

NBAA and two individuals 

commented on language in both the 

draft AC and the NPRM requiring 

reporting of a pilot’s aeronautical 

experience, flight time, and flight 

maneuvers performed to maintain 

privileges of their certificate. The 

individual commenter noted 

inconsistent statements between 

proposed § 111.220(b)(3), which says no 

person may report records documenting 

aeronautical experience, and 

§ 111.220(a)(2), which requires 

operators to report records related to 

currency and proficiency. The 

commenters noted these reporting 

requirements will result in operators 

needing to log every flight hour, 

instrument approach, and landing in the 

PRD. NBAA asked the FAA to remove 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31035 

52 ‘‘Pilot time’’ is defined in § 61.1 and includes 

time in which a person serves as a required pilot 

flightcrew member and time giving and receiving 

flight training in an aircraft, full flight simulator, 

flight training device, or aviation training device. 

53The FAA views qualification requirements 

broadly as any certificate, rating, training, checking, 

testing and experience required to be qualified or 

maintain qualification for a position (e.g. pilot in 

command) in a particular operation (e.g. part 121). 

reporting requirements related to 

§ 61.57. 

Another individual commenter 

expressed confusion over what it 

interpreted as a proposal not to require 

the reporting of aeronautical experience. 

The commenter argued that the entire 

purpose of the proposed rule is to 

ensure that appropriate aeronautical 

experience exists when hiring pilots. 

vi. FAA Response 

Regarding the exclusion of 

‘‘aeronautical experience’’ in the 

reporting requirements proposed in the 

NPRM, the FAA recognizes that 

aeronautical experience, which is 

defined only in part 61, is used to 

describe the information that pilots 

must log to demonstrate compliance 

with the requirements of part 61. As 

defined in § 61.1, aeronautical 

experience means ‘‘pilot time [52]

obtained in an aircraft, flight simulator, 

or flight training device for meeting the 

appropriate training and flight time 

requirements for an airman certificate, 

rating, flight review, or recency of flight 

experience requirements’’ of part 61. 

The FAA acknowledges that using the 

term ‘‘aeronautical experience’’ in part 

111 could be confusing. 

In the final rule, the FAA replaces 

‘‘aeronautical experience’’ in the 

exclusion with ‘‘recent flight 

experience.’’ Although recent flight 

experience is a ‘‘qualification’’ 53

requirement like training and checking 

events, the final rule excludes these 

requirements from the reporting 

requirements in part 111. The FAA 

notes that the regulations generally 

identify this type of event in section 

headings. For example, § 135.247 sets 

forth recent experience requirements 

including takeoffs and landings that 

must be performed within a certain 

period of time before conducting an 

operation. Under § 111.225(b), these 

records are excluded from the reporting 

requirements but remain recordkeeping 

requirements for operators. 

vii. Comments Regarding the Lack of 

Standardization in Training Records 

Several commenters addressed the 

lack of industry standards in training 

records. Noting that training data is 

currently stored in company-specific 

formats that can be challenging to 

decipher, an individual commenter 

suggested the FAA create an industry 

standard reporting format for the PRD. 

The commenter said the PRD should be 

easily understandable by anyone 

accessing it and that, without 

standardization, it could be difficult to 

discern which type of training event 

occurred and what was covered in each 

event. A4A recommended that the FAA 

work with carriers to discuss how 

events reported from one carrier can be 

interpreted by other carriers. CAA 

recommended the FAA provide 

additional guidance material to ensure 

standardization of all training records. 

CAA, A4A, and RAA recommended 

that the FAA create a PRD working 

group to help standardize the form and 

manner of the records to be recorded in 

the PRD. 

The General Aviation Manufacturers 

Association (GAMA) commented that 

the FAA’s attempt to create a statistical 

database disregards the fact that the PRD 

will be populated with statistically 

unrelated information. 

Pointing to paragraph 10.1.1.1.2 of 

Draft AC 111, ALPA said it agrees with 

the FAA’s proposed use of a 

‘‘Standardized Training Record Input’’ 

with a requirement to identify 

consistently each ‘‘Action/Event,’’ in 

reference to the primary training 

categories from the specific curriculum 

segments in the carrier’s FAA-approved 

training program. 

viii. FAA Response 

Some variation might exist in 

interpreting various operators’ training 

events. This is a particularly notable 

challenge for record-sharing under 

PRIA, concerning the original employer 

record. As a result, the FAA identified 

standardized data elements for entries. 

Using a standardized input will provide 

a consistent format as part of the PRD 

airman report. Providing the uniform 

report, regardless of the format used by 

a reporting entity, will allow reviewing 

entities to interpret the information 

accurately and efficiently. For example, 

when a reporting entity reports a 

proficiency check, it will select the 

regulatory basis for the check, such as 

a Part 121 subparts N and O based 

curriculum, from a drop down list. This 

selection will determine which data 

entry options are available based on the 

training or checking event. The only 

opportunity for reporting entity to 

provide text would be in the context of 

check pilot or evaluator comments. 

Because the selection of event type is 

primarily comprised of predefined 

items, every reporting entity who 

wishes to record, for example, a line 

check, will be reporting line checks in 

the same format and manner with the 

same associated data fields such as the 

type of training program, the date of the 

check, and the results of the check. 

When these records are displayed to a 

reviewing entity in an organized report, 

the reviewing entity can digest the 

critical facts and details more quickly 

and easily than when a reviewing entity 

must review multiple reports in various 

formats produced by each previous 

employer. 

The FAA revised AC 120–68J to refine 

the data elements that the FAA expects 

to see reported in the PRD in order to 

comply with the regulatory requirement 

set forth in § 111.225. Each training 

record will include information 

concerning the type of training program 

and curriculum the operator uses. The 

PRD will aid in identifying the training 

elements most crucial to identifying 

patterns in pilot performance, but the 

FAA notes that the purpose of the PRD 

is to share information with reviewing 

entities, not develop training elements. 

ix. Comments Regarding the 

Requirement for Different Types of 

Operators To Enter Training Records in 

the PRD 

Some commenters, including Koch 

Industries (Koch), which employs more 

than 30 pilots who hold type ratings 

under 14 CFR 61.31(a), objected to the 

requirement to report training and 

checking records. Koch asserted the 

FAA already maintains the records or 

that the records are available from 

training centers. RAA opposed the 

proposed requirement to include 

employer-required training records in 

the database, saying it will add nothing 

to comparative data or the standard 

reached by the individual, as the 

training may be voluntary and will vary 

widely from carrier to carrier. 

NASA and JPATS noted an FAA pilot 

certificate is not a requirement to 

operate government aircraft at the 

discretion of the Federal agency, and 

that their qualification, requalification, 

currency, and check flight requirements 

do not align with part 61 currency 

requirements. These commenters stated 

the proposed requirements do not 

benefit the government and appear only 

to benefit industry. JPATS also noted it 

does not have the resources to maintain 

these records, that the records are not 

relevant to JPATS operations, and that 

the requirement would be burdensome. 

The Small UAV Coalition said that, 

because unmanned aircraft systems 

(UAS) are different from the aircraft 

used in traditional air carriage, the 

safety risks that the PRD seeks to 

mitigate do not necessitate requiring 

UAS air carriers to produce or review 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
31036 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

training and proficiency records. 

Moreover, the commenter continued, 

given the significant difference between 

different types of UAS, the ability to 

compare training and performance 

records diminishes the relevance of that 

review. Accordingly, the Small UAV 

Coalition recommended that the FAA 

revise the regulatory text to state the 

requirement ‘‘does not apply to air 

carriers and other operators operating 

only autonomous unmanned aircraft 

systems.’’ The Coalition also requested 

the FAA acknowledge in the preamble 

of this rule that certain requirements for 

submission of documentation of 

compliance with employer-required 

training, checking, testing, etc., do not 

apply to air carriers or other operators 

using only autonomous UAS. 

An individual commenter asked 

whether training providers would 

supply information to the PRD directly. 

Another individual commenter 

recommended that the FAA require part 

142 training centers to provide training 

records to the database directly, thereby 

alleviating the administrative burden on 

part 91 operators. Another commenter 

said flight training providers, who 

support insurance industry 

requirements (such as FlightSafety, 

SimCom, LOFT, etc.) and maintain 

training records under § 61.58 for 

purposes of part 142 training centers, 

should report any below-standard 

performance on initial or subsequent 

type rating checks directly to the FAA. 

x. FAA Response 

To the extent that the commenters 

stated it is not appropriate to include 

training or proficiency records of pilots 

engaged in small UAS operations, the 

FAA does not agree. Small UAS 

operators subject to 14 CFR part 135 are 

already subject to recordkeeping 

requirements. The data elements 

provided in the AC will be broadly 

applicable to, and are appropriate for, 

both manned and unmanned operations. 

Consistent with all part 135 operations, 

pilots serving in part 135 unmanned 

aircraft operations are trained under an 

FAA-approved training program and are 

subject to proficiency checks and line 

checks. Although the operations might, 

in some ways, be different from manned 

aircraft, the pilots are trained and 

evaluated on areas universal to pilot 

performance, such as aeronautical 

decision-making, compliance with FAA 

regulations (including those related to 

airspace), and crew resource 

management. A pilot’s performance 

during training and checking events can 

provide relevant information to 

operators looking to employ a pilot; 

therefore, no basis exists for excluding 

these pilot records from the reporting 

requirements. Moreover, the PRD Act 

does not expressly exclude such 

operations. 

With respect to comments concerned 

about the inclusion of training records 

for certain part 91 operators, the FAA 

stated in the NPRM: 

The FAA recognizes that commercial air 

tour operators, corporate flight departments, 

and entities conducting public aircraft 

operations are not required to maintain an 

approved pilot training program or maintain 

records concerning employer-mandated pilot 

training and qualification events. However, 

all pilots must record certain events in their 

pilot logbooks to maintain their currency 

with an FAA pilot certificate pursuant to 

§ 61.57. While these events are required to be 

recorded by pilots in their logbooks, the FAA 

expects that operators employing pilots 

maintain similar pilot training and currency 

records demonstrating compliance with part 

61 to document that their pilots are trained, 

qualified and current for operational safety 

and regulatory compliance purposes. 

The FAA reiterates in this final rule that 

the NPRM did not propose to impose a 

new system of recordkeeping for 

training records not already kept by 

commercial air tour operators, corporate 

flight departments, and entities 

conducting public aircraft operations. 

As stated above, the FAA relied on 

information indicating that employers 

falling within this grouping (PAC 

operators) may keep training records of 

their own accord. If an operator keeps 

those records, the FAA proposed to 

require those records be reported to the 

PRD. While the record may not provide 

the same level of assurance that may 

accompany a required training record 

from an approved training program, 

these records play an important role in 

helping the reviewing entity make a 

comprehensive assessment of a pilot’s 

proficiency. 

Upon review of the comments 

indicating that employers do not 

generally keep records generated 

exclusively under part 61, and in 

consideration of the new method of 

compliance for PAC operators to report 

training records upon request, the FAA 

does not envision that this requirement 

would be overly burdensome for PAC 

operators. Accordingly, § 111.225 

requires that when a PAC operator 

maintains training records, the operator 

must enter those records into the PRD 

upon receipt of a request in accordance 

with § 111.215(b). The reporting entity 

should include any training records 

available to the extent those records are 

compliant with the requirements in 

§ 111.225. As discussed in the NPRM, 

the FAA believes there is value in 

reporting of employer-specific training 

records, to the extent they exist, as 

many operators complete training 

outside an approved training program. 

The FAA does not intend the PRD to 

create additional record keeping 

requirements. Instead, this rule makes 

some records that a reporting entity 

already maintains available in a central 

database for hiring employers. AC 120– 

68J describes in detail the possible 

record elements for entry in the PRD. 

The PRD Act does not apply to part 

142 training centers or any other entity 

that has not employed the pilot, as 

discussed further in Section V.A.1. 

xi. Other Comments Regarding Training 

Records 

Ameristar and ALPA commented on 

the proposed reporting elements for 

training records. Ameristar 

recommended that the FAA rewrite the 

paragraph to read: ‘‘Result of an event 

as satisfactory or unsatisfactory,’’ and 

delete the rest of the paragraph, and 

amend proposed § 111.220(c)(7) to 

require comments explaining a result 

that is unsatisfactory. ALPA said it 

agrees with the proposed requirement in 

§ 111.220(c)(6) for every ‘‘Result of the 

event’’ to be reported as either 

‘‘satisfactory’’ or ‘‘unsatisfactory’’ 

because the approach promotes uniform 

and objective reports. ALPA said it 

opposes the proposed requirement to 

include a brief comment explaining the 

basis for any ‘‘unsatisfactory’’ event. 

ALPA asserted this proposed 

requirement contradicts the language 

and intent of the PRD Act and is unwise 

as a matter of policy. 

Atlas Air also commented on the 

importance of ensuring awareness of a 

pilot who initiated but did not finish a 

training program. The commenter noted 

the proposed rule requires reporting of 

training segments that end 

‘‘Satisfactorily, Unsatisfactorily, 

Complete, Incomplete, Pass, or Fail,’’ 

but it does not give direction as to the 

description of what an ‘‘Incomplete’’ is 

and how it should be described in the 

free text areas of the PRD. The 

commenter stated the air carrier must 

provide the specific reason the training 

was not completed as related to pilot 

proficiency. Atlas Air stated the FAA 

needs to provide guidelines about the 

specific information to be reported in 

the free text areas to resolve 

inadequacies with the current PRIA 

system. CAA and RAA similarly 

recommended the FAA require carriers 

to report the reason a pilot did not 

complete a training course. CAE also 

questioned whether a pilot who, in 

training, shows consistent difficulty 

with a task or area of operation over 

more than one training event yet 

ultimately passes each event 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31037 

54The FAA notes that the term ‘‘currency’’ refers 

to meeting the appropriate airman and medical 

recency requirements specific to the operation or 

activity. See 14 CFR 61.2(b). It includes recent flight 

experience. 

successfully will be trackable in this 

system. 

Noting that the pilot involved in the 

Continental Flight 3407 accident had 

training issues that included three 

instances of additional training while a 

first officer, Atlas Air and another 

commenter said it is unclear whether 

records of these types of additional 

training will be available in the PRD. 

The commenter stated none of that 

information would have been published 

in the PRD under the current proposal. 

Ameristar asked the FAA to clarify 

‘‘subpart of the title’’ in proposed 

§ 111.220(c)(4). Ameristar also said 

proposed § 11.220(c)(4) and (5) appear 

to focus only on training but do not 

seem to include proficiency checks, line 

checks, or other checks. The commenter 

suggested references to regulatory 

sections only, and not to a company’s 

training program, which would be 

meaningless to a reviewing entity. 

Ameristar noted that training under part 

121, Appendix E, may have well over 

100 elements for which a satisfactory, 

unsatisfactory, or incomplete grade 

could be given to each element. The 

commenter asked whether the FAA 

intends records of all such events would 

be included, even if the pilot 

satisfactorily completes the type rating 

or proficiency checks. If so, the 

commenter asserted, this would be 

extremely burdensome for a reporting 

entity and would not serve any purpose 

or enhance safety. Ameristar said it 

believes that indoctrination ground 

training is not relevant as it is not 

aircraft specific. 

Two individual commenters 

recommended the FAA remove the 

reporting requirement for pilot currency 

records. Commenting on the proposed 

requirements to report other training 

and qualification events (as well as drug 

testing results), a commenter also 

suggested that the final rule include 

language to protect operators from 

potential liability from a pilot taking 

legal action against an operator for 

reporting these factual items. 

Cummins, Inc. suggested that the 

length of time a pilot needs to complete 

training should not result in adverse 

implications or negative connotations, 

including impact on future career 

options. Cummins stated the employer 

could discriminate inadvertently based 

on a disability, as a reasonable 

accommodation applied in some 

circumstances is allowing additional 

time to complete a test. Another 

commenter was concerned about the 

prospect of a pilot failing the check due 

to a temporary physical, emotional, or 

mental situation impacting the pilot’s 

ability to perform satisfactorily in a high 

stress situation, and stated there should 

be some adjustments available to 

account for such circumstances. 

An individual commenter said 

records maintained and reported for this 

section need to be limited to those 

events and training that occur while 

employed with the certificate holder or 

operator. This commenter also said the 

prohibition against reporting flight and 

duty time ‘‘is negative to safety and 

allows for continued fraudulent activity 

in the aviation industry.’’ The 

commenter asserted that providing 

certificate holders and operators with 

the ability to check stated experience 

against a trusted database and the pilot’s 

own logbook would increase safety and 

eliminate the possibility that flight time 

does not appear to match skill level. 

A4A and RAA asked the FAA to 

clarify a record element, ‘‘Line 

Operating Flight Time,’’ because it 

appears that the FAA meant to use the 

Line-Oriented Flight Training (LOFT), 

as defined in AC 120–35D, instead of 

Line Operating Flight Time. 

xii. FAA Response 

The FAA removed the reference to 

‘‘currency’’ in § 111.225(a)(2) as 

adopted. The FAA reevaluated the 

language of the proposed regulation and 

confirms that it does not intend to 

collect currency records in this part. 

This revision is further supported by the 

exclusion of recent flight experience 54

in § 111.225(b)(3). The FAA notes, 

however, that operating experience 

under the supervision of a check pilot 

or evaluator will be included in the 

PRD. These events are an assessment of 

pilot proficiency at a critical stage in a 

pilot’s service for an operator. 

Specific flight information normally 

found in a pilot’s logbook such as 

departure point, destination, and flight 

time details will not be reported to the 

PRD, as the PRD is not intended to be 

a duplicate flight logbook. The FAA also 

determined it will not require reporting 

of items associated with §§ 61.56 (flight 

review) and 61.57 (recent flight 

experience). The FAA understands that 

pilots will often share the existence of 

these records with employers and that 

some employers may actually keep 

additional copies of the records. 

However, the pilot is under no 

obligation to share these records with 

employers for their recordkeeping. 

Commercial air tour operators, corporate 

flight departments, and entities 

conducting public aircraft operations 

may indeed have these records, which 

are maintained by the pilot, but there 

will be many instances where operators 

will not have these records as the 

burden of compliance is on the pilot. 

For training, proficiency, and 

qualification records for all reporting 

entities, this rule includes the items 

required to be reported in accordance 

with § 111.225(c)(7) to indicate the 

inclusion of specific detail about 

unsatisfactory events, which includes 

incomplete events. Such inclusion will 

ensure the amount of information 

provided to a reviewing entity is at least 

as much as is provided under PRIA. 

Where the result would be complete or 

incomplete, events that are complete 

would be considered ‘‘satisfactory’’ and 

events that are incomplete would be 

considered ‘‘unsatisfactory.’’ The form 

for reporting these records will 

distinguish between incomplete events 

and other unsatisfactory events. For 

such records, a reporting entity would 

provide further detail about the specific 

maneuvers or events that were 

unsatisfactory or incomplete. AQP 

validation events conducted by 

evaluators are an assessment of pilot 

proficiency, and the comments of the 

evaluator will be valuable to a reviewing 

entity. Such comments, including an 

indication of which events or 

maneuvers were unsatisfactory or 

incomplete, should also be included. 

Ameristar asked if the FAA intended 

for the PRD record to include each 

maneuver or task included on a typical 

proficiency record. The forms used for 

proficiency checks include several items 

which could be accomplished during 

the checking event and normally, a 

check pilot or evaluator indicates 

whether an item is applicable, 

satisfactory, or unsatisfactory. The FAA 

agrees that requiring every specific item, 

satisfactory or unsatisfactory, to be 

reported in the PRD record would be 

overly burdensome. However, in the 

case of an unsatisfactory checking event, 

a reviewing entity needs to be able to 

determine exactly what task or 

maneuver was unsatisfactory. To that 

end, as discussed in the previous 

paragraph, the FAA will require 

reporting entities to indicate which 

tasks or maneuvers were unsatisfactory 

or incomplete while not requiring 

satisfactory items be listed in such 

detail. 

The free text areas of the PRD will 

exist exclusively for comments related 

to a checking event and for an 

indication of events that are 

unsatisfactory or incomplete, as 

discussed previously. The FAA 

considers incomplete events to be 

unsatisfactory, as described above. The 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
31038 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

form of the record itself will distinguish 

between incomplete events from other 

unsatisfactory events, based on the 

event type. The record entry for those 

events will also include specific detail 

indicating whether specific items were 

unsatisfactory or incomplete, as 

explained previously. 

In response to the comments 

regarding second in command (first 

officer) training, as required by 

§ 121.415(j), approved training programs 

must provide training for pilots who 

have been identified as having 

performance deficiencies during 

training and checking and/or multiple 

failures during checking. For AQP 

programs, § 121.913(b)(4) specifies that 

a special tracking curriculum is required 

when an air carrier has assigned a pilot 

to an augmented schedule of training, 

checking, or both. Reporting entities 

must include records of remedial 

training or special tracking when those 

records apply. These records, in 

addition to the other training, 

qualification, and proficiency records 

specified in AC 120–68J, will assist the 

reviewing entity in making an 

assessment of the pilot’s history. 

Regarding comments about the clarity 

in the regulatory text when the FAA 

refers to training, checking, and 

proficiency records in proposed 

§ 111.220(c)(4) and (5), approved 

training programs are generally 

comprised of various curricula. Most 

curricula then include various training 

(e.g. § 121.427 recurrent training) and 

checking events (e.g. § 121.441 

proficiency checks). The FAA 

considered what curricula and related 

events apply to the various training 

programs and which of those would 

provide meaningful information to a 

reviewing entity, the objective being to 

find the appropriate balance between 

providing sufficient detail in the PRD 

against the burden that may be placed 

on reporting entities. Part of this review 

by the FAA considered that while most 

records for a particular curriculum or 

training event are most often 

satisfactory, that record becomes much 

more telling to the reviewing entity 

when it is unsatisfactory. The FAA has 

included some records because, 

although a rare occurrence, noting 

unsatisfactory or incomplete 

performance by a pilot is an important 

part of the assessment and must be 

made available to a reviewing entity in 

the interest of safety. As described in 

AC120–68J, the FAA believes only 

particular record elements provided in 

the PRD will be applicable to a pilot. 

For example, reporting entities will 

enter various curriculum completions or 

withdrawals such as basic 

indoctrination or upgrade curriculum. 

Various checking events such as line 

checks and maneuvers validations when 

completed as part of a continuing 

qualification curriculum will also be 

reported. Another example as reflected 

in AC120–68J is that in most cases, the 

FAA has removed the reporting element 

of ‘‘Upgrade ground training and 

upgrade flight training.’’ Instead, only a 

single record of the Upgrade training 

curriculum is entered. AC120–68J also 

includes certain specific training 

records such as extended envelope 

training. 

The FAA agrees that a variety of 

circumstances could affect a pilot’s 

ability to perform satisfactorily in a high 

stress situation but does not agree that 

the PRD should account for such a 

situation. Operating an aircraft often 

causes high stress situations for a pilot, 

regardless of a temporary situation 

affecting a pilot’s ability to perform, and 

a pilot completing or satisfactorily 

passing a check regardless of external 

circumstances is a helpful indicator for 

a hiring employer. The FAA intends the 

PRD to prompt conversations; in this 

regard, a pilot is free to offer an 

explanation to an employer regarding a 

check failure or a delay to complete 

training and encourages pilots and 

potential employers to engage in a 

robust dialogue during the hiring 

process. 

As discussed extensively in the 

NPRM, all records entered by reporting 

entities, including training, 

qualification, and proficiency records, 

must only be the records they have 

generated or are otherwise maintaining 

for their own operational needs. For 

example, a reporting entity would not 

report a record it received in response 

to a PRIA request. AC 120–68J states 

that records received in response to a 

PRIA request or records obtained from 

the PRD should be maintained as 

separate records and should not be 

stored with the other pilot records. This 

is to prevent those records obtained 

under PRIA or via the PRD from being 

entered again into the database or 

otherwise released to another operator 

in response to a PRIA request. 

PAC operators that elect to keep 

records from training centers or when 

provided by pilots would report those 

records to the PRD even though they did 

not directly create those records as the 

records are serving that operator’s direct 

operational needs. 

The FAA clarifies that, when it 

mistakenly used the term Line 

Operating Flight Time in the NPRM, it 

was referring to Line Oriented Flight 

Training (LOFT). The FAA has since 

determined reporting individual LOFT 

events to the PRD is not appropriate and 

that the PRD will instead accept 

information regarding training curricula, 

but not the individual training sessions 

they include. 

Lastly, the PRD does not collect flight 

and duty records as this information is 

not particularly useful to a reviewing 

entity. These records would also impose 

a significant burden for reporting 

entities. A commenter opined that 

review of such records could help 

validate a pilot’s logbook records if the 

PRD recorded flight and duty records. 

The commenter suggested a reviewing 

entity could compare the flights shown 

in the logbook against the flights shown 

in the PRD. This would only be true if 

the PRD contained every flight record, 

including records for flights performed 

unrelated to a reporting entity. It is not 

feasible to ensure every flight record 

could be entered in these cases. If the 

PRD included some of the flight and 

duty records but not others, the PRD 

would be inadequate for validating 

against a pilot’s flight records. 

Additionally, the PRD does not perform 

any data validation to compare records 

entered against the various applicable 

regulations. For example, the PRD does 

not check that a pilot has performed a 

line check when required or that a pilot 

has successfully completed all required 

training. The PRD simply accepts the 

record and redisplays it to a reviewing 

entity. It is the responsibility of the 

reviewing entity to use the information 

found in the PRD to help assess a pilot 

when making a hiring decision and of 

the reporting entity to report accurate 

information. 

This section also includes reporting 

deadlines. In the NPRM, the FAA 

proposed including reporting timelines 

in a different section (proposed 

§ 111.250). The FAA has reorganized 

part 111 to move the expected timelines 

for reporting into each record section. 

The remainder of § 111.225 is adopted 

as proposed. 

7. Final Disciplinary Action Records— 

Section 111.230 

As required by the PRD Act, the FAA 

proposed to include records of final 

disciplinary actions in the PRD. The 

FAA proposed including written 

warnings, suspensions, and 

terminations. The proposal excluded 

any disciplinary actions subsequently 

overturned as a result of a settlement 

agreement, the official decision or order 

of any panel or individual with 

authority to review employment 

disputes or by any court of law, or other 

mutual agreement between the 

employer and the pilot. The FAA also 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31039 

proposed certain data elements to be 

included in the record. 

i. Comments Received 

The NTSB, A4A, NBAA, CAPA, 

ALPA, Ameristar, and individuals 

addressed the proposed requirement to 

report final disciplinary action records 

to the database. CAPA and four 

individual commenters opposed the 

proposed requirement to report final 

disciplinary action records to the PRD. 

The remaining commenters sought 

clarification from the FAA on the types 

of final disciplinary actions for which 

records must be reported or addressed 

other aspects of the proposed 

requirement. 

ii. General Comments on Inclusion of 

Disciplinary Action Records 

CAPA and several individual 

commenters objected to the reporting in 

PRD of any records related to 

disciplinary actions. These commenters 

argued that such information is too 

subjective and that including it in the 

PRD could open the door for false 

reports of disciplinary actions by 

vindictive or biased employers and 

could unfairly affect future employment 

opportunities. 

iii. Comments Addressing the Types of 

Disciplinary Actions Reportable to the 

PRD 

The NTSB, ALPA, NBAA, and A4A 

commented on the types of disciplinary 

actions that would be reportable to the 

PRD. Noting that it has identified 

deficiencies in pilots’ adherence to 

standard operating procedures as 

contributing causal factors in aviation 

accidents, the NTSB expressed support 

for the FAA’s proposal to expand upon 

what is required in PRIA to include in 

the PRD, ‘‘[r]ecords of an activity or 

event specifically related to an 

individual’s completion of the core 

duties and responsibilities of a pilot to 

maintain safe aircraft operations, as 

assigned by the employer and 

established by the FAA.’’ ALPA 

expressed support for the FAA’s 

proposal to limit disciplinary actions 

that may be entered into the PRD to only 

those ‘‘pertaining to pilot performance,’’ 

excluding any disciplinary records 

arising out of actions or events 

unrelated to the pilot’s completion of 

core duties and responsibilities to 

ensure the safe operation of the aircraft. 

NBAA asserted, however, that ‘‘pilot 

performance’’ is quite broad and that the 

FAA should clarify in the regulatory 

text that reportable disciplinary action 

is limited to ‘‘pilot performance related 

to the execution of aeronautical duties,’’ 

as stated in Draft AC 120–68J at 

paragraph A.1.1. NBAA contended this 

clarification should be contained in the 

regulation itself to mitigate any 

malfeasance by a noncompliant or 

malicious operator. 

A4A said that the definition of ‘‘final 

disciplinary action record’’ is unclear 

because it combines two distinct types 

of employment action—corrective and 

disciplinary—and is silent as to a third 

component that is often a required 

element of a disciplinary action, which 

is loss of pay or benefits. The 

commenter said the final rule should 

clarify that loss of pay or benefits is not 

necessary for an employment action to 

constitute a ‘‘final disciplinary action.’’ 

A4A asserted that the proposed rule is 

unclear because it conflates corrective 

actions with disciplinary actions by 

stating in proposed § 111.225(d)(1) that 

employers must report ‘‘the type of 

disciplinary action taken by the 

employer,’’ and then stating in proposed 

§ 111.225(d)(3) that employers must 

submit ‘‘a brief summary of the event 

resulting in corrective action.’’ A4A 

noted that some employers define 

‘‘corrective action’’ as a nondisciplinary action taken by employers 

to remedy a perceived performance 

short-fall or minor misconduct, treating 

it as a training event, not a disciplinary 

event. The commenter said that it is 

unclear whether the FAA meant for the 

two types of actions to be identical or 

distinct. 

A4A also noted that the proposed rule 

requires only that final disciplinary 

actions be reported, creating a potential 

years-long gap between when 

misconduct or performance failure 

occurs and when it is reported in the 

PRD, due to internal company grievance 

procedures. A4A said the final rule 

must address this gap and allow for the 

transparent transfer of relevant pilot 

records information to enable hiring 

carriers to make informed decisions. 

ALPA strongly objected to the FAA’s 

proposal to require carriers to add 

written descriptions about disciplinary 

actions. 

ALPA and A4A commented on the 

proposal to prohibit entry of any record 

of disciplinary action that was 

subsequently overturned. ALPA 

expressed general support for the 

proposal, but for disciplinary actions 

overturned after entry into the database, 

the commenter urged the FAA to require 

carriers to submit requests for correction 

to the PRD within 5 days of such 

overturned action, instead of the 10 

days proposed. A4A also noted that the 

proposal does not define what 

‘‘overturned’’ means and said the final 

rule should clarify whether all, or some, 

settlement agreements constitute an 

‘‘overturning.’’ A4A noted that the 

preamble points to language in House 

Report 105–372 (Oct. 31, 1997), 

clarifying that ‘‘subsequently 

overturned’’ includes discipline that has 

been rescinded as a result of a 

‘‘legitimate settlement agreement,’’ and 

that a ‘‘legitimate settlement agreement’’ 

could include instances in which the 

parties agree the action that was the 

subject of discipline did not occur or 

was not the pilot’s fault; however, it 

should not include instances where the 

air carrier agrees to wipe the pilot’s 

record clean in order to pass the pilot 

onto another unsuspecting carrier. A4A 

argued that these examples in the 

preamble represent two unlikely 

scenarios occurring at the margins and 

do not address the majority of 

settlement agreements, which are 

entered into to avoid protracted 

litigation without admission of fault by 

the pilot or concession by the employer. 

A4A expressed concern over a 

perceived contradiction in the proposed 

rule, which clearly bars entry of 

disciplinary records when overturned 

by a settlement, without regard for the 

basis of that settlement. A4A suggested 

the FAA clarify whether all settlement 

agreements overturning a disciplinary 

action bar reporting of that action or 

whether § 111.225(b)(1) is limited to 

only those settlement agreements that 

recognize the pilot was not at fault. 

Ameristar referred to Table 3 in the 

preamble to the NPRM, which contains 

the data elements required to be entered 

into a pilot’s historical record, and 

questioned why aircraft type is relevant 

to a disciplinary action. 

NBAA expressed concern about 

proposed § 111.260 and the definition of 

‘‘Final Disciplinary Action,’’ which 

would require ‘‘other operators,’’ 

presumably including certain part 91 

operators, to have a documented process 

for resolving disputes related to 

disciplinary action records included to 

the PRD. NBAA asserted that for a twoor three-pilot, two-aircraft operation, 

this could be impractical or ineffective, 

as few individuals are typically 

involved in human resources in a small 

or even mid-sized flight operation and 

some such operators may not even have 

or retain these types of records. NBAA 

argued that this is a reason why most 

part 91 operators should not be subject 

to the PRD. 

iv. FAA Response 

The FAA reiterates that the PRD Act 

requires reporting of disciplinary action 

records. In response to comments 

regarding whether loss of pay or benefits 

is necessary for an action to constitute 

a disciplinary action, the FAA defines 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
31040 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

55 85 FR 17684. 

disciplinary action for purposes of part 

111 without mentioning loss of pay or 

benefits because neither is necessary for 

an event to constitute a disciplinary 

action. The FAA does not adopt any 

employer-specific definitions of these 

events. The FAA notes that insofar as an 

operator might internally consider 

certain correctional records as nondisciplinary, this final rule intends to 

extend the same expectations regarding 

record reporting to the PRD as was 

required under PRIA. Operators should 

continue a similar posture to reporting 

disciplinary records to the PRD as was 

the case under PRIA. It is incumbent on 

the employer to include events falling 

within the general description this rule 

provides, regardless of an employer’s 

internal definition. The FAA 

emphasizes, however, that the 

disciplinary action, as defined in this 

rule, must be relevant to pilot 

performance. 

The FAA has reviewed comments 

suggesting the FAA require operators 

submit a correction within 5 days 

instead of 10 days for actions 

overturned after they are submitted to 

the database. The timeframe the FAA 

proposed in the NPRM is appropriate as 

it permits slightly more than one 

working week in the event the 

responsible person or other users are 

unavailable for five working days. This 

rule adopts the requirement, as 

proposed. 

Section 111.230(b)(1) and the PRD Act 

prohibit inclusion in the PRD of 

disciplinary action records where the 

disciplinary action is subsequently 

overturned. The threshold question in 

determining whether a settlement 

agreement would cause a record to be 

removed or not reported is whether the 

settlement agreement invalidates the 

disciplinary action that prompted the 

creation of the record. When 

considering what agreements should 

cause a record to be removed or not 

reported, the interest of aviation safety 

supports narrowing that class to those 

agreements arising from situations in 

which parties agreed the action did not 

occur or was not the pilot’s fault. As 

referenced by A4A, the ‘‘legitimate 

settlement agreement’’ language quoted 

in the NPRM further supports such a 

limitation.55

Accordingly, the FAA updates the 

regulatory text for this section and for 

§ 111.235 regarding separation from 

employment actions to reflect that the 

FAA only considers such actions to be 

overturned for purposes of removing or 

not reporting the record where there is 

a finding in either the agreement or in 

the decision of the person or panel with 

authority to adjudicate employment 

disputes or a court of law that the 

underlying event did not occur or the 

pilot was not at fault. An affirmative 

finding is required; an agreement or 

adjudication does not suffice to overturn 

an action where it merely leaves 

unresolved whether the event occurred 

or whether the pilot was at fault. If an 

agreement does not overturn the 

disciplinary action or separation from 

employment action in accordance with 

the terms set forth by the FAA in this 

part, then the record of the disciplinary 

action must be in the PRD. The FAA 

fully expects employers to act in a 

manner consistent with the PRD Act by 

not engaging in conduct that would 

wipe the pilot’s record clean in order to 

pass him or her onto another 

unsuspecting carrier, as that effectively 

would undermine the purpose of the 

PRD. 

The FAA also updates this section 

and § 111.235 to change ‘‘settlement 

agreement’’ to ‘‘documented agreement’’ 

and remove ‘‘other mutual agreement.’’ 

The FAA reconsidered inclusion of this 

provision and determined that the only 

acceptable agreement between a pilot 

and an employer for purposes of 

determining that a disciplinary action 

record or a separation from employment 

action is overturned would be a 

documented agreement. Whether the 

agreement could be deemed a 

‘‘settlement’’ agreement or some form of 

‘‘other mutual’’ agreement is not 

germane; rather, the crux is that an 

informal, undocumented agreement 

between a pilot and an employer would 

not be sufficiently robust and verifiable 

to support removing or not reporting a 

record from the PRD. 

The FAA will not require reporting of 

an aircraft type when entering final 

disciplinary actions. The FAA agrees 

with commenters that this data element 

is not relevant as part of the PRD record. 

Cases might exist in which a reviewing 

entity considers aircraft type; however, 

as stated previously, the PRD is not 

meant to be the final source of data 

when assessing a pilot during the hiring 

process. The PRD will be a baseline or 

starting point for discussion between 

the pilot, reviewing entities, and 

previous employers. 

It is incumbent on the operator or 

entity employing the pilot to determine 

when an action is final. Once no further 

action is pending, this rule requires a 

record of the action. In determining that 

the action is final, the operator or entity 

should conclude that the action is not 

subject to any pending dispute, 

including any form of grievance 

procedure or litigation. The PRD Act 

only permits entry of disciplinary action 

records that were not subsequently 

overturned. As a result, internal 

resolution processes that precede the 

record being final must be complete 

prior to entry of that disciplinary action 

in the PRD. The FAA acknowledges 

that, as the A4A noted, the PRD Act’s 

prohibition on recording actions prior to 

the final record could create a ‘‘yearslong’’ gap between when misconduct 

occurs and when it is reported in PRD. 

The FAA concurs with A4A’s example 

that if a disciplinary action were 

‘‘effective’’ that it could also be final, 

depending on the operator’s 

determination that the action is not 

subject to pending dispute. The FAA 

does not have oversight over each 

operator or entity’s disciplinary system, 

and defers judgement to an operator to 

decide when the action is a ‘‘final’’ 

record. Once an action is final, the 

record must be entered within 30 days. 

Many commenters asked for 

clarification concerning the meaning of 

‘‘any final disciplinary action record 

pertaining to pilot performance’’ and 

core duties and responsibilities of a 

pilot as they relate to sexual harassment, 

discrimination, or other misconduct. 

Section V.A.3, Definitions, includes a 

description of the FAA’s considerations 

about which records pertain to pilot 

performance. 

The FAA adopts § 111.230 with some 

changes to the regulatory text, primarily 

to incorporate text regarding reporting 

timelines and to add the possibility for 

certain operators to report records in 

accordance with the process set forth in 

§ 111.215. In the NPRM, the FAA 

proposed including reporting timelines 

in a different section (proposed 

§ 111.250) but after further evaluation, 

decided to instead include the expected 

timelines for reporting in each record 

section. The new text also reflects the 

new method for reporting for certain 

types of disciplinary action records, 

explained previously in Section V.C.4 

This rule will not require a reporting 

entity to include a brief summary of an 

event resulting in the corrective action. 

The FAA explained in the NPRM that 

the PRD would include a text field 

limited to 256 characters. The FAA 

reviewed comments on this topic and 

concluded that 256 characters is not a 

significant amount of text in which to 

explain such an event and that 

establishing a version on which the 

employer and pilot agree may not be 

possible. Instead, consistent with the 

FAA’s view of the PRD as a source of 

basic information but not the dispositive 

authority about a pilot’s history, the 

database will include several options for 

categorization and a place to enter the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31041 

date. Additionally, this final rule 

requires reporting entities to retain 

documents relevant to a final 

disciplinary action record reported in 

accordance with § 111.230(a) for five 

years after reporting that event, if those 

documents are available. Reporting 

entities will also be required to provide 

those relevant documents to a reviewing 

entity upon request. Under this 

provision, ‘‘relevant’’ means that the 

documents form the basis for the record 

reported to the PRD. The FAA envisions 

the relevant documents that reporting 

entities will retain and share would be 

any information that would have been 

used to develop the summary record 

proposed by the NPRM, such as a 

written record of a suspension detailing 

the circumstances of the event that led 

to the action. Additionally, the FAA 

would consider these relevant 

documents to be available if the 

documents exist. The FAA does not 

expect that there would be a difference 

between the types of supplemental 

relevant documents retained under this 

provision and the types of documents 

currently shared between employers 

under PRIA about final disciplinary 

actions and separation from 

employment actions. 

The FAA notes that this final rule also 

adopts an identical approach for any 

documents relevant to a separation from 

employment action. The FAA’s 

objective in adopting this provision is to 

ensure that if more detailed information 

about complex employment actions 

exists, reviewing entities have access to 

that information if desired when making 

a determination about whether to hire a 

pilot. The FAA has determined this 

requirement is commensurate with the 

frequency with which potential 

employers are likely to seek more 

information about final disciplinary 

action events. The FAA anticipates that 

most reviewing entities will make a 

determination about a pilot based on the 

information about the event that appears 

in the PRD, but encourages reviewing 

entities to request further information if 

it would be helpful in the hiring 

process. 

A reporting entity must also provide 

a copy of such information to the 

subject pilot upon request, as would be 

required for any record reported to the 

PRD, and a pilot can submit a dispute 

resolution request for this information 

to a reporting entity through the PRD if 

that pilot disagrees with the content of 

the additional records. The reporting 

entity must provide these 

supplementary records within 14 days 

of receiving the request, consistent with 

the FAA’s timeframe for other record 

reporting provisions. 

As adopted, the final rule requires an 

indication of whether the disciplinary 

action was a written warning, a 

suspension, or a termination; whether 

the disciplinary action resulted in a 

temporary or permanent removal from 

aircraft operations; and the date the 

disciplinary action occurred. For PAC 

operators, only disciplinary actions that 

resulted in a temporary or permanent 

removal from flight operations must be 

reported upon the action becoming 

final. Any other disciplinary action may 

be reported upon request from a 

reviewing entity, in accordance with the 

process set forth in § 111.215(b). 

The remainder of § 111.230 is adopted 

as proposed, with renumbering from the 

NPRM as reflected throughout this 

section. 

8. Final Separation From Employment 

Records—Section 111.235 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed 

including separation from employment 

records in the PRD, in accordance with 

the statutory requirement to include 

such records. The FAA proposed 

requiring an employer to keep records 

under separate regulations, as well as 

other separation from employment 

records kept by the employer, 

specifically those related to pilot 

performance. The FAA also proposed 

prohibiting inclusion of separation from 

employment records where the action 

was subsequently overturned. 

i. Comment Received 

RAA, A4A CAPA, Ameristar, 

PlaneSense, Inc., and many individuals 

commented on the proposed 

requirement for operators to enter into 

the PRD certain information pertaining 

to a pilot’s final separation of 

employment. Ameristar asserted that 

‘‘[r]ecords pertaining to pilot 

performance’’ is vague, is redundant of 

proposed § 111.230(a)(1), and appears to 

include non-pilot related information 

that is outside the scope of 

§ 111.230(a)(1). 

Commenting on separation from 

employment that an operator initiates 

but that is not due to pilot performance, 

an individual commenter asserted the 

FAA did not propose to allow the pilot’s 

end-of-employment disposition to 

reflect that the termination was 

unrelated to performance. In such 

instances, the commenter noted, the 

operator would indicate that the reason 

for the pilot’s release from employment 

was ‘‘Termination,’’ but there would be 

no further explanation and no 

opportunity for the pilot to add 

commentary. This commenter also 

noted that no path exists for a pilot to 

provide or deny consent to comments or 

records provided by anyone who 

registers as an authorized user manager, 

which allows an authorized user to 

submit comments or records on any 

pilot, even pilots not under the user’s 

supervision. Addressing a situation in 

which a pilot resigns after being asked 

to engage in an unsafe operation, 

another individual suggested employers 

will fabricate a reason for separation to 

affect the pilot negatively. 

Commenting on separation from 

employment that an operator initiates 

and that is related to pilot performance, 

RAA requested clarification regarding 

whether any termination related to a 

pilot’s performance would 

automatically create two entries into the 

PRD for the same incident—one record 

of the disciplinary action resulting in 

termination and another record of the 

termination, based on the underlying 

incident. RAA also noted that operators 

sometimes use both a primary and 

secondary reason for termination and 

questioned whether the operator must 

report both reasons or only the primary 

reason for termination. 

A4A said the final rule should clarify 

that only those professional 

disqualifications related to pilot skills 

are reportable. A4A noted the FAA 

provided examples of professional 

disqualifications that would have to be 

entered into the PRD (at 85 FR 17687), 

which include a pilot who has been 

disqualified as a PIC due to a failed 

proficiency check and referred to SIC 

training and requalification. A4A stated 

the NPRM is unclear as to why this is 

listed as an example of a separation 

record when the pilot is still employed. 

A4A characterized this example as a 

failed training event, not a termination 

event. A4A suggested that including this 

example implies a carrier would be 

required to create a separate record each 

time a pilot is disqualified for any 

reason, even if that reason has no 

bearing on piloting abilities. A4A said 

that requiring a PRD report upon loss of 

such qualifications would be 

excessively burdensome and would not 

further safety. 

A number of commenters, including 

CAPA and PlaneSense, addressed the 

proposed requirement for operators to 

submit ‘‘a brief summary of the event 

resulting in separation from 

employment.’’ The PlaneSense 

commenters objected to this proposed 

requirement and requested that the FAA 

either remove it from the final rule or 

that the final rule provide employers 

with immunity from legal action 

brought as a result of the summary. 

These commenters argued that this 

requirement is beyond the scope of the 

PRD Act, could violate pilots’ medical 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
31042 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

privacy, and could make carriers 

vulnerable to lawsuits. 

An individual commenter 

recommended that the FAA amend the 

language in proposed § 111.230(d)(6) to 

read: ‘‘For separation of employment a 

brief summary of the separation should 

be included.’’ The commenter said this 

would eliminate the loophole many 

pilots and air carriers use, in that nonperforming pilots might be asked or told 

to resign instead of being terminated. 

The commenter argued this industry 

practice passes poor-performing pilots 

from carrier to carrier without a means 

to catch issues of performance found in 

the training environment. The 

commenter pointed to the First Officer 

of the Atlas Air 3591 crash in Trinity 

Bay, Texas, who ‘‘was found to have 

resigned multiple times for personal 

reasons.’’ However, A4A went on to 

state that ‘‘examination of data in the 

NTSB docket indicates that he wasn’t 

performing at these carriers as expected, 

but was allowed to resign without 

consequences.’’ 

CAPA objected to the proposed 256- 

character limit for summaries 

terminations, arguing that such cases 

should not be subject to arbitrary limits. 

NBAA noted ‘‘furlough’’ is not 

typically used in part 91 or part 135 

operations and explained that few 

business aviation operators furlough 

their employees. This commenter 

indicated that furlough status may deter 

a prospective employer from hiring a 

candidate who is furloughed from a part 

121 air carrier position, as the candidate 

remains eligible to return to the 

candidate’s previous position. NBAA 

recommended that the FAA replace 

‘‘furlough’’ with ‘‘laid off’’ or ‘‘position 

eliminated’’ (temporary or permanent). 

ii. FAA Response 

The FAA agrees, after considering all 

comments received, that for many cases, 

a 256 character summary would not be 

sufficient. Adequate opportunity must 

exist to explain sufficiently a separation 

from employment action. Therefore, the 

FAA is removing the requirement for a 

summary. Employers will designate by 

category what type of separation from 

employment it was, and the date. As 

discussed in the previous section 

regarding final disciplinary actions, this 

final rule requires reporting entities to 

retain documents relevant to a final 

separation from employment action 

record for five years after reporting that 

event, if such documents are available. 

Reporting entities will also be required 

to provide those relevant documents to 

a reviewing entity upon request. The 

FAA is adopting this requirement 

instead of requiring reporting entities to 

draft a 256 character summary of the 

event as proposed in the NPRM, and 

envisions the relevant documents that 

reporting entities share would be any 

information that would have been used 

to develop the proposed summary of the 

event. This amendment addresses the 

comments expressing concerns related 

to possible legal action as a result of the 

employer posting a summary. 

As mentioned in the NPRM, the FAA 

understands situations might arise in 

which a pilot may resign without facing 

repercussions for poor pilot 

performance. Reporting entities should 

accurately construe the separation from 

employment action in the PRD. Even if 

a pilot is permitted to resign despite 

poor performance, a disciplinary action 

associated with that poor performance 

in the PRD would likely exist. In that 

situation, the FAA anticipates the hiring 

employer would review the resignation 

and disciplinary action as a 

consideration worthy of discussion with 

the pilot, and ask the pilot and former 

employer for information about the 

incident. 

The FAA also removes the term 

‘‘furlough’’ from the regulation, because 

it would also be considered an 

‘‘employer-initiated separation 

unrelated to pilot performance.’’ 

Furlough entries should only be 

reported once the separation from 

employment has been final for 30 days. 

If an event results in multiple 

outcomes, an identical disciplinary and 

separation from employment action for 

a pilot might exist. In such cases, the 

entity may report the event in the PRD 

as a termination as a result of a 

disciplinary action and a separation 

from employment resulting from pilot 

performance. All such information is 

relevant and must be included in the 

database. The pilot has an ability to 

request a correction or commence a 

dispute regarding any record, discussed 

further in Section V.C.11. 

Generally, § 111.235 is adopted as 

proposed, with corresponding edits to 

reflect changes made to the previous 

section, including reference to 

compliance with § 111.215(b), moving 

details about timelines for reporting into 

this section, and adding amended 

language categorizing the type of 

separation from employment. The 

different categorizations available in the 

PRD, such as a termination as a result 

of pilot performance, including 

professional disqualification related to 

pilot performance, physical (medical) 

disqualification, employer-initiated 

separation not related to pilot 

performance, or any resignation, 

including retirement, will provide 

sufficient detail to give a reviewing 

entity a picture of any topics worthy of 

discussion. 

As discussed in the previous section 

in reference to disciplinary action 

records that were subsequently 

overturned, the FAA also makes 

corresponding changes to this section to 

reflect that a record is only subsequently 

overturned if there is a finding in a 

documented agreement, from a person 

or panel with the authority to review 

employment disputes, or from a court of 

law that the underlying event did not 

occur or was not the pilot’s fault. 

The FAA otherwise adopts this 

section substantively as proposed. As 

discussed in the previous section, the 

FAA made corresponding updates to 

this section to reflect the new process 

adopted in § 111.215 and to reflect that 

PAC operators must report termination 

records related to pilot performance 

contemporaneously. 

9. Verification of Motor Vehicle Driving 

Record Search and Evaluation—Section 

111.240 

The FAA proposed that each operator 

subject to the requirements of § 111.110 

must report to the PRD verification that 

it met the requirements of § 111.110. 

The verification would be required 

within 45 days of the PRD Date of Hire. 

In § 111.240, the FAA also proposed 

prohibiting the inclusion of any State 

driving records in the PRD. Section 

111.240 is adopted as proposed, with 

edits to reflect reorganization of the 

regulatory text. The 45-day timeline for 

verification was removed from § 111.250 

and placed into the text of § 111.240. 

The FAA notes that this verification 

should be marked as complete after the 

NDR report is received and the 

reviewing employer has requested 

records from any States that the NDR 

indicated would have records regarding 

the individual. Comments on NDR 

review are discussed in Section V.B.3. 

10. Special Rules for Protected 

Records—Section 111.245 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to 

prohibit the inclusion of records 

protected by 14 CFR part 193 in the 

PRD. RAA and A4A supported the 

proposal. This section is adopted as 

proposed, with clarifying edits. No 

records reported as a part of an Aviation 

Safety Action Program or any other 

approved Voluntary Safety Reporting 

Program in accordance with part 193 

may be reported to the database, as 

those records are designated as 

protected by the FAA. Records not 

designated as protected by the FAA 

about an event are still subject to 

reporting in accordance with this part. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31043 

11. Correction of Reported Information 

and Dispute Resolution—Section 

111.250 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed a 

process for correcting errors that an 

operator becomes aware of with respect 

to information that an operator reported 

previously to the PRD. The FAA also 

proposed to require an employer subject 

to part 111 have a process in effect for 

handling disputes regarding pilot 

records that an operator reported to the 

PRD. 

i. Comments Received 

Many comments addressed the 

proposed process for identifying and 

reporting errors and requesting 

corrections to pilot records in the PRD. 

Several commenters suggested the PRD 

automatically alert pilots when changes 

are made to their records, require pilots 

to digitally sign off on the accuracy of 

the changes, and provide pilots a free 

copy of their record annually. 

Many commenters, including the 

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association 

(AOPA), expressed concern that the 

proposed rule did not provide a clearly 

defined process for who is responsible 

for identifying and correcting inaccurate 

information in the PRD. They 

recommended those who have access to 

and might include information on a 

pilot’s record, including the FAA and 

past employers, must be responsible for 

correcting inaccuracies that are brought 

to their attention. ALPA commented on 

proposed § 111.255, which would 

require an operator to submit a request 

for correction within 30 days after 

discovery of its submission of erroneous 

or inaccurate information to the PRD. 

ALPA asserted prompt corrective action 

is necessary, and stated that notices of 

correction are quick actions. As such, 

ALPA recommended the FAA require 

correction of erroneous information 

within 5 days. 

AOPA and NATA noted that no 

requirement exists for removing 

inaccurate information, even if the 

information was demonstrably false. 

AOPA indicated the proposed rule did 

not require the FAA to make a notation 

concerning disputed information, only 

that the pilot may make the request. 

AOPA recommended that the FAA 

evaluate and remove or correct 

inaccuracies in the PRD if the employer 

is unwilling or unable to do so, 

consistent with the Privacy Act. 

Several commenters, including 

AOPA, NATA, ALPA, and GAMA were 

concerned that the FAA provides no 

guidance on how a dispute resolution 

process should be structured and stated 

it is imperative that the dispute 

resolution procedures involve 

meaningful review with wellestablished, mutually agreed-upon 

procedures. They urged the FAA to 

maintain oversight of the procedures to 

ensure a fair process. NATA also 

commented it would be useful when 

managing disputed records for a 

comment field to exist for all entries 

because similar challenges could arise 

from omitting an entry for a pilot or 

entirely missing a pilot entry, making it 

appear the pilot was never employed by 

the carrier. NATA further commented 

that the proposed rule did not clearly 

address how the FAA will manage pilot 

records of businesses that have closed. 

NATA asked, if a pilot identified an 

error by a prior employer that is now 

closed (and was neither acquired nor 

subject to bankruptcy proceedings), to 

whom the pilot should direct the 

request for correction and what 

outcomes are possible. 

A4A commented on the process for 

resolving disputes over information 

documented in the PRD, asking the FAA 

to clarify the meaning of ‘‘dispute,’’ 

‘‘documented process for resolving 

disputes,’’ and ‘‘investigation.’’ A4A 

recommended the FAA limit ‘‘disputes’’ 

to errors and inaccuracies in the PRD 

and foreclose any substantive challenge 

to the information contained within the 

record. A4A also recommended that the 

FAA provide a form on the PRD site 

(which the FAA would manage), in 

which pilots would enter their disputed 

claim. A4A recommended the final rule 

clarify that the dispute notation will 

remain in the PRD only during the 

pendency of the dispute. A4A also 

recommended that the final rule clarify 

that a negotiated grievance procedure 

under a collective bargaining agreement 

or, where applicable, other 

administrative grievance procedure 

meets the requirements of proposed 

§ 111.260(a). Further, A4A asked the 

FAA to clarify that the collective 

bargaining agreement resolution process 

would satisfy carrier information 

correction requirements under the PRD. 

A4A said the final rule should not 

permit multiple disputes of the same 

information. Finally, A4A asked the 

FAA to clarify that when a carrier 

corrects an error in the PRD, only the 

new or corrected record will remain in 

the PRD. 

With respect to historical records, 

NATA indicated it is possible there are 

no current air carrier employees with 

first-hand knowledge of prior pilots and 

the events recorded for them, and asked 

what carrier actions the FAA would 

consider reasonable. NATA argued 

complications associated with historical 

records support the need for the ability 

to upload copies of physical documents 

to the PRD, the creation of larger 

summary text fields, and for adding 

those summary text fields to any record. 

NATA requested that the FAA provide 

additional information on how a carrier 

should proceed if there are gaps in their 

historical records. 

Several commenters raised concerns 

about the potential for misuse of the 

information in the PRD. AOPA and an 

individual commenter noted the 

potential exists for employers to use the 

PRD in a coercive manner against 

current and former employees. CAPA 

commented that during periods of rapid 

growth, a carrier wishing to avoid pilot 

turnover could prevent its pilots from 

being considered for employment by 

other airlines by including training 

comments intended to discourage their 

selection. Several individuals noted the 

potential for an employer to 

purposefully or accidentally input 

incorrect or biased information about a 

pilot. 

ALPA said the FAA should confirm 

that it has a legal responsibility to 

ensure data entered into and maintained 

in the PRD complies with the law. 

Where a pilot complains that data has 

been entered in violation of section 203 

of the PRD Act, or has not been removed 

as required, ALPA stated the FAA 

should provide a procedure to remedy 

such actions. ALPA recommended the 

FAA provide pilots with a right of 

appeal through NTSB appeal 

procedures, according to 14 CFR part 

821, to resolve any such unresolved 

claims. 

A4A recommended that the FAA 

clarify explicitly in the final rule that air 

carriers and proxies have the option to 

access the PRD to review and correct 

information the air carrier reported to 

the PRD. 

ii. FAA Response 

In the NPRM, § 111.250, Duty to 

Report Records Promptly, provided 

timelines for required records to be 

submitted to the FAA in a timely 

fashion. Section 111.250 listed required 

records and included specific days 

within which the records must be 

reported to the FAA. The FAA removes 

this regulatory section in its entirety and 

places each of those timeframes within 

the respective regulatory sections that 

discussed the underlying record 

requirement. As a result, the regulatory 

sections are renumbered, and proposed 

§ 111.245, Requests for correction of 

reported information, is renumbered 

and re-titled § 111.250, Correction of 

reported information and dispute 

resolution. This section now also 

contains the provisions regarding the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
31044 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

56Alternative 4 would require air carriers and 

operators to report present and future pilot records 

to the PRD, but continue to send historical records 

under PRIA until the PRD has 5 years of pilot 

records (by the start of 2025, the PRD would have 

data from 2020 to 2024), at which point PRIA could 

be discontinued. 85 FR 17701, March 30, 2020. 

dispute resolution process. The FAA 

considered all comments received on 

the error correction and dispute 

resolution process and made revisions 

to clarify certain aspects of the process. 

The FAA received many comments on 

the NPRM requesting the FAA include 

more detailed, prescriptive 

requirements concerning dispute 

resolution, and for the FAA to confirm 

it has a legal responsibility to confirm 

data entered into the PRD complies with 

the law. However, as noted in the NPRM 

and in this final rule, the FAA is not 

required to verify the accuracy of data 

that reporting entities submit to the 

PRD. Operators are obligated by 

regulation and statute to enter accurate 

information and are in the best possible 

position to ensure that information is 

accurate. The PRD Act does not require 

the FAA to provide prescriptive 

requirements concerning disputes over 

information or to oversee a dispute 

resolution process. The FAA discusses 

the agency’s privacy obligations in the 

Privacy Impact Assessment for PRD, 

which will be posted on the docket for 

this final rule. Nonetheless, the FAA has 

included requirements in this rule that 

ensure pilots are afforded remedies if 

they believe reporting entities have 

reported erroneous data. These 

requirements will limit misinformation 

or misuse of the PRD. Reporting entities 

must provide final disposition of record 

disputes to pilots who believe 

information provided by the entity is 

inaccurate and to identify disputed 

records within the PRD system. These 

processes fulfill the statutory 

requirement that individuals may make 

written requests to the Administrator, 

who will provide individuals a 

reasonable opportunity to submit 

written comments to correct any 

inaccuracies contained in the record. 

Finally, although the FAA does not 

determine the accuracy of records 

provided by reporting entities, pilots 

may submit requests for amendment 

under the Privacy Act to the FAA if they 

believe records created and maintained 

by the FAA in its databases, as 

described in 49 U.S.C. 44703(i)(2), are 

inaccurate. 

As mentioned previously, a pilot 

always has the option of requesting 

correction to a record with which the 

pilot disagrees. A reporting entity is 

obligated to correct any information that 

the employer confirms is inaccurate. If 

a pilot can demonstrate to the reporting 

entity that the information it entered in 

the database is inaccurate, the reporting 

entity must correct the information. Any 

abuse of the PRD by a reporting entity 

through the misreporting of information 

about a pilot would be both a regulatory 

and statutory violation and of great 

concern to the FAA. Fraud or 

intentional falsification of records 

reported to the PRD is prohibited under 

§ 111.35. Pilots can report fraud or 

suspected intentional falsification of 

records to the FAA for investigation. 

With respect to comments regarding 

the potential for employers to use the 

PRD in a coercive manner, the FAA 

acknowledges that this is an inherent 

concern for any exchange of records 

about a person, and arguably exists 

under PRIA. The provision of 

appropriate statutory and regulatory 

opportunity for pilots to note disputes 

mitigates the potential for misuse. 

The FAA clarified in Section IV.C.7 

and 8 that summaries of the separation 

and disciplinary action records are not 

being required to be submitted under 

this final rule. The FAA recommends 

that reviewing entities to communicate 

with the pilot and the reporting entity 

about the exact nature of the 

disciplinary or separation action record, 

appropriately categorized. 

In response to ALPA’s comment 

regarding 14 CFR part 821, that part is 

codified in NTSB regulations and only 

applies to certificate actions, rather than 

resolution of disputes concerning pilot 

records. The FAA cannot amend 

another agency’s regulations. 

A pilot dispute of an error or 

inaccuracy could be substantive or nonsubstantive in nature. Pilots may flag 

the error or inaccuracy in the PRD 

directly, but the request for correction 

goes through the PRD directly to the 

reporting entity and would be resolved 

by that entity. No FAA approval is 

necessary to correct the record. The 

dispute notation will remain in the PRD 

only during the pendency of the 

dispute. The pilot may remove the 

dispute indicator if the pilot is satisfied 

that the record has been corrected. If a 

reporting entity corrects an error in the 

PRD, only the new or corrected record 

will remain visible in the PRD. 

A negotiated grievance procedure 

under a collective bargaining agreement 

or, where applicable, other 

administrative grievance procedure 

would meet the requirements of 

§ 111.255. The FAA does not set 

requirements for the details of 

employers’ dispute resolution processes. 

Information correction requirements 

under the PRD are complete once a 

record has either been corrected or the 

dispute process is complete. Because 

the FAA does not have a basis to 

determine the accuracy of industry 

records, if a reporting entity goes out of 

business and there is no trustee in 

bankruptcy to handle dispute resolution 

obligations, the record would remain in 

dispute in the PRD indefinitely. The 

FAA expects a pilot would explain the 

nature of the disagreement to a hiring 

employer. 

The FAA adopts the proposed 

provisions with edits to consolidate the 

regulation. The FAA also revised the 

reporting timeframe for record 

correction to occur within 10 days, 

unless the reporting entity engages the 

pilot in its dispute resolution process. 

If an operator disagrees with the 

request for correction of erroneous 

information, it must engage the pilot 

requesting the correction in its direct 

dispute process. The operator must 

initiate investigation within 30 days, 

and, within a reasonable amount of time 

in consideration of the proceedings to 

establish the accuracy of the record, 

provide final disposition to the PRD. As 

mentioned previously, these capabilities 

will all be built into the functionality of 

the PRD. 

12. Duty To Report Historical Records to 

the PRD—Section 111.255 

Proposed § 111.420 incorporated the 

statutory requirement for air carriers 

and operators subject to PRIA to enter 

historical records into the PRD. For air 

carriers, the PRD Act requires that 

records dating from August 1, 2005, be 

entered into the PRD. For other persons, 

the Act requires records dating from 

August 1, 2010 must be entered into the 

PRD. The FAA adopts this provision in 

the final rule in subpart C. 

i. Comments Received 

A4A recommended adopting a final 

rule that does not include a historical 

documents requirement. A4A stated that 

the obligation to provide ‘‘records that 

the air carrier or other person is 

maintaining on such date of enactment’’ 

under 49 U.S.C. 44703(i)(4) must be 

read in the context of the continued 

obligations to comply with PRIA until 

the PRD final rule is in effect. A4A 

stated the FAA accepted this implicitly 

when it discussed Alternative 4 in the 

Regulatory Flexibility Determination 

section of the NPRM and did not argue 

that this alternative is contrary to law.56

A4A opposed requirements for 

historical records of positive drug and 

alcohol test results or of a refusal to take 

the test. A4A suggested Congress may 

have intended to reference §§ 120.111(a) 

and 120.219(a), which only require 

certain records be retained. The 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31045 

commenter stated that neither of these 

sections require the return-to-duty tests 

for more than a year, and for this reason, 

the FAA cannot expect all carriers to 

have retained more than one year of 

these records. 

A4A commented that the proposed 

regulation captures significant historical 

records that are not relevant to the 

hiring determination. The commenter 

also stated that, because of the 

significant burden of providing 

historical records and the nominal value 

of doing so, the FAA should not subject 

carriers to undisclosed or future 

intention to report additional historical 

information. One commenter noted that 

recordkeeping obligation of fractional 

operators in § 91.1027(a)(3) and (b) is to 

maintain records for a minimum of 12 

months. 

CAPA noted the backfilling of past 

pilot records accurately could be time 

consuming and expensive, if not 

impossible, and future guidance on 

recording training events that might 

result from this new rule may not 

translate accurately to previous 

recordkeeping practices. This 

commenter argued a requirement to 

provide historical records during the 

current COVID–19 public health 

emergency is unreasonable, and the new 

regulation should provide a consistent 

methodology to record and report data 

and have a defined future starting point. 

The FAA received other comments on 

historical record reporting format; these 

comments are addressed in Section 

V.C.3. regarding the format for reporting 

records. 

ii. FAA Response 

As discussed extensively in the 

NPRM, the FAA is required by statute 

to include historical records in the PRD 

and does not have discretion to adjust 

the dates or records that the PRD must 

include. A4A’s analysis disregarded 

critical text in 49 U.S.C. 44703(i)(4). The 

subsection cited in the PRD Act, 

particularly (h)(4)(B)(ii)(II), requires air 

carriers and other persons to report 

‘‘[r]ecords that the air carrier or other 

person is maintaining, on such date of 

enactment pursuant to subsection 

(h)(4).’’ As stated above, subsection 

(h)(4) encompasses the 5-year period 

preceding the enactment of the PRD Act. 

Alternative 4 was not accepted for legal 

reasons. This alternative was discussed 

per the initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis of impacts on small entities 

prepared for the NPRM as a means of 

addressing potential cost. At the time of 

the NPRM, the FAA presented 

Alternative 4 as a potentially legally 

permissible option, but on further 

review, determined that this was not the 

case. If it were legally permissible, 

Alternative 4 might be a less costly 

solution than the final rule; however, 

given the lack of available data, the FAA 

is not able to ascertain whether 

including historical records only in a 

manner that mimics PRIA would 

achieve the purpose of the PRD Act. 

This final rule provides the lowest cost 

legally-permissible solution. The FAA 

will include a summary of commenters’ 

concerns regarding the lookback period 

for historical records in its next 

triannual report to Congress, as set forth 

in 49 U.S.C. 44703(i)(12). 

Regarding drug and alcohol testing 

records, Section IV.C.5. contains a 

response to A4A’s statement regarding 

recordkeeping requirements for returnto-duty test results. 

The FAA adopts this regulation as 

proposed, with some changes. 

Paragraph (c) is revised to list the 

specific types of operators that do not 

have to comply with the historical 

records reporting requirement. That 

group is the same as from the NPRM, 

but now more clearly defined. 

Additionally, the deadline for reporting 

historical records is now three years and 

90 days after publication of the rule to 

coincide with sole compliance with part 

111. The FAA also added a provision to 

establish interim timelines for historical 

records reporting. The FAA understands 

that operators uploading historical 

records may have significant records to 

provide to the PRD. To facilitate a PRD 

transition that focuses on the most 

relevant records in accordance with 

concerns expressed by the NTSB and 

the Families of Continental Flight 3407, 

the FAA will prioritize uploading 

historical records that date on or after 

January 1, 2015. Those historical 

records must be uploaded within two 

years of the date of publication of the 

final rule. All other historical records 

must be uploaded prior to the last date 

of PRIA usage, which will be three years 

and 90 days after publication of the final 

rule. 

The section will include opportunity 

to request deviation from the 

compliance dates provided in (d) of this 

section. The FAA will consider 

providing deviations based on an 

evaluation that the delay in uploading 

historical records is due to 

circumstances beyond the control of the 

air carrier or other operator and that 

such a delay would not have an adverse 

effect on safety. Any operator seeking a 

deviation must include all information 

listed in subparagraph (2) in order for 

the FAA to be able to consider the 

request for deviation. The Administrator 

may terminate the grant of deviation at 

any time upon notice to the operator. 

During the term of the deviation, the 

operator must continue to retain 

historical records for reporting to the 

PRD and would be required to provide 

individual pilot records upon request, if 

a request arises. 

The FAA intends to engage with the 

responsible persons for each subject 

entity upon approval of a responsible 

person’s application. The FAA is eager 

to begin the implementation process. 

The FAA will work with responsible 

persons to facilitate setting up PRD user 

accounts and to begin mandatory FAA 

records review. Over the course of the 

next year, the PRD program manager 

will also work closely with responsible 

persons from reporting entities to ensure 

technical challenges are overcome along 

the path to compliance. AC 120–68J 

accompanies this final rule, and further 

guidance will continue to follow as the 

implementation process progresses. The 

FAA is committed to working with 

industry to facilitate a smooth transition 

from PRIA to PRD and to ensure that all 

pertinent records, as required by the 

statute, are included in the PRD. Over 

time, once contemporaneous reporting 

is ongoing for five years and PRD 

compliance is normalized, the FAA 

expects operators will benefit from a 

cost savings. 

The remainder of § 111.255 is adopted 

as proposed. 

D. Subpart D—Pilot Access and 

Responsibilities 

1. Applicability—Section 111.300 

The FAA proposed in the NPRM that 

subpart D would apply to pilots holding 

an airline transport or commercial pilot 

certificate under 14 CFR part 61, as well 

as any remote pilots operating with a 

part 107 certificate or any individual 

who is employed as a pilot by an 

operator of a public aircraft. As adopted, 

this subpart will apply to any pilot 

meeting the criteria in § 111.1, 

regardless of the certificate, in 

accordance with revisions made for 

consistency with § 111.1. The FAA 

notes that in response to a comment 

from AOPA about whether pilots 

without a commercial certificate would 

be able to access their records: Only 

pilots that would be employed by an 

operator subject to this part would have 

industry records in the PRD. Any other 

records would be FAA records with 

which the pilot would likely already be 

familiar. 

2. Application for Database Access— 

Section 111.305 

In this section, the FAA proposed 

regulations governing pilot access to the 

PRD and the minimum information 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
31046 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

necessary to gain access. The FAA also 

proposed to require submission of an 

application seven days prior to the 

anticipated date of access and that 

continued access would be subject to 

compliance with § 111.25. 

i. Comments Received 

One commenter stated the proposed 

requirement for pilots to provide a 

current U.S. mailing address and 

telephone number would prevent many 

pilots, who live outside the U.S. but are 

employed by U.S. air carriers, from 

being able to access their database 

records. Furthermore, it may inhibit 

pilots who live abroad but hold FAAissued airman certificates from applying 

for jobs with U.S. based companies, as 

companies might not seek to work with 

paper-based release from liability 

agreements that would be required for 

access to a pilot’s records. This 

commenter recommended the FAA 

allow those pilots access to the PRD 

through another means of validation 

that does not require a U.S. mailing 

address. 

ii. FAA Response 

The FAA adopts § 111.305 as 

proposed with three changes. The first 

change is that a pilot must first request 

access to the PRD for the purposes listed 

in § 111.305(a) if the pilot is requesting 

access to the pilot’s own records, except 

as provided in § 111.315(c). Second, in 

response to concerns from commenters 

about the requirement for a U.S. mailing 

address, the FAA determined that for 

purposes of this regulation, a 

requirement for the pilot to have a U.S. 

mailing address is unnecessary. 

However, the FAA notes that system 

capabilities may be functionally limited 

for web access outside the United 

States. The FAA acceptance of an 

address does not guarantee an ability to 

access the PRD while located physically 

outside the United States. Third, the 

FAA removed the provision proposed in 

(d), which was duplicative of the denial 

of access provision adopted at § 111.25. 

3. Written Consent—Section 111.310 

In § 111.310, the FAA proposed to 

require air carriers and other operators 

obtain consent from a pilot for review of 

both PRD records and any State motor 

vehicle driving records about that pilot. 

The FAA amends proposed § 111.310 to 

include affirmation of pilot employment 

history dating back five years. Inclusion 

of this pilot employment history 

addresses concerns from commenters, 

and in particular the NTSB, that there 

could be a gap in history for certain 

pilots, particularly if not all pilot 

records are uploaded 

contemporaneously, as discussed in 

Section V.C regarding § 111.215. By 

requiring a pilot to provide an 

affirmation that their employment 

history for five years preceding the date 

of consent is accurate and complete and 

also by requiring employers to upload 

records that indicate problematic pilot 

performance, the FAA will ensure that 

a potential employer has access to all 

pilot records for review prior to 

permitting the pilot to begin service. 

The FAA otherwise adopts § 111.310 

without substantive changes. The FAA 

did not receive any comments specific 

to this provision. 

4. Pilot Right of Review—Section 

111.315 

The PRD Act provides a statutory 

right of review for a pilot of his or her 

records. The FAA proposed to codify 

this right to review in § 111.315. The 

pilot has the right to review both the 

pilot record reflected in the PRD, as well 

as a copy of any State motor vehicle 

driving records that may have been 

provided to a prospective employer. The 

FAA adopts this section substantively as 

proposed, and adds paragraph (c), 

which allows a pilot to submit a request 

to the FAA so that the pilot can review 

all records contained in the PRD 

pertaining to that pilot, without 

credentials issued in accordance with 

§ 111.305. The PRD record would be 

transmitted external to the database, so 

the pilot could access his or her record 

without accessing the PRD database. 

The FAA did not receive any comments 

specific to this provision. 

5. Reporting Errors and Requesting 

Corrections—Section 111.320 

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to 

require operators to have a process 

enabling a pilot to report errors and 

provide corrections to the pilot’s PRD 

record. This process would involve 

flagging the record as incorrect and 

submitting comments explaining why 

that record is incorrect. The FAA would 

also flag that record as ‘‘in dispute’’ if 

a disagreement exists with respect to the 

content of the record. It would remain 

‘‘in dispute’’ until resolution of that 

dispute between the pilot and an air 

carrier or other operator is complete. 

The FAA reorganized this section to 

delete proposed (a) and (b). As the PRD 

Act requires the Administrator to 

provide an opportunity for an 

individual to submit written comments 

correcting his or her record in the PRD, 

a separate requirement in this section is 

not necessary and paragraph (a) is 

removed. Furthermore, proposed 

paragraph (b) was duplicative of 

proposed paragraph (c), and therefore 

removed. 

Paragraph (a), as adopted, requires a 

pilot to report any error or inaccuracy to 

the PRD in a form and manner 

acceptable to the Administrator. If the 

record was entered by a current or 

former employer, the pilot can use the 

PRD to flag a record as incorrect. This 

request will go through the PRD to the 

reporting entity. The PRD administrator 

will flag an FAA record manually, if 

disputed by the pilot, but that dispute 

resolution process occurs in the FAA 

system where the original record 

resides, such as CAIS or EIS. To correct 

an error or inaccuracy in a record, the 

pilot would need to request a correction 

under the Privacy Act. For FAA records, 

the AC 120–68J includes a description 

of the appropriate office to contact for 

each type of FAA record to request 

correction through the Privacy Act. 

The process of adding a notation to a 

pilot record disputed by the pilot is 

automatic. The FAA does not review 

requests for notation. For discussion of 

further comments regarding dispute 

resolution, please see Section V.C.11. 

E. Other Amendments 

The FAA proposed to amend 

§ 91.1051 to replace the pilot safety 

background check required by this 

section with compliance with part 111. 

The FAA instead removes § 91.1051, 

effective upon September 9, 2024, and 

consolidates applicability for part 111 in 

§ 111.1. The FAA also withdraws 

proposed amendments to parts 91, 121, 

125, and 135, for the same reason. 

The FAA received comments on this 

topic from the PlaneSense commenters. 

These commenters indicated that 

fractional operators have an obligation 

under current § 91.1051 to conduct a 

pilot safety background check within 90 

days of hiring a pilot, and the operator 

must request FAA records and records 

from previous employers spanning the 

prior 5 years of the pilot’s flight-related 

employment records. These commenters 

note this section does not impose a 

recordkeeping requirement on the 

fractional operator, as § 91.1027 imposes 

that obligation. 

Fractional operators would comply 

with the PRD as set forth in the 

applicability of part 111. A fractional 

operator would begin reviewing records 

in the PRD one year after the date of 

publication of the final rule and 

continue to comply with § 91.1051 

where records are not yet available in 

PRD until three years and 90 days after 

the rule. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31047 

F. Other Comments 

1. Comments on Requests To Extend the 

Comment Period or Provide Further 

Rulemaking Documents 

Several commenters, including the 

NBAA, Cargo Airline Association, 

Ameristar, Experimental Aircraft 

Association, and the National Air 

Transportation Association, requested 

that the FAA extend the public 

comment period. Many of these 

commenters indicated they needed 

more time to review the proposed rule 

and prepare their responses to the many 

detailed questions that the FAA posed, 

particularly because the proposal was 

published during the unprecedented 

COVID–19 public health emergency, 

which has affected the air transportation 

industry. 

NBAA commented that the significant 

number of requests for information by 

the FAA preceding the NPRM, and the 

contradictions between the various 

documents supporting the proposal, 

suggests the FAA should have 

published an advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking. NBAA suggested 

developing a supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) or 

holding a public hearing may result in 

a more effective rulemaking effort and 

alleviate some industry concerns. For 

these reasons, NBAA recommended the 

FAA issue a SNPRM to reflect industry 

input on the FAA’s list of questions. 

2. FAA Response 

The FAA refers commenters to its 

Denial Letter for Extension of Comment 

Period (FAA–2020–0246–0038), which 

the FAA posted to the rulemaking 

docket on June 12, 2020. The FAA 

reiterates this rationale and emphasizes 

the FAA’s determination to move 

forward with adoption of this rule. This 

final rule clarifies specific points of 

confusion raised by commenters in 

response to the NPRM. Moreover, the 

FAA will work closely with industry to 

ensure a common understanding of the 

regulatory requirements in part 111. 

3. Comments on Electronic Records, 

LOAs, MSpecs, and OPSpecs 

NBAA commented that, by 

implementing an electronic PRD, the 

FAA has, by example, determined 

electronic records are valid and 

constitute sufficient evidence of 

regulatory compliance. NBAA asserted 

if the FAA mandates that air carriers, 

operators, and other entities use and 

submit electronic records through the 

PRD but also requires authorization to 

use electronic recordkeeping through 

LOA, MSpec, or OpSpec, the FAA must 

include in its economic analysis the cost 

of preparing policies and procedures for 

electronic recordkeeping, then 

requesting authorization for the LOA, 

MSpec, or OpSpec, plus the ongoing 

cost of maintaining electronic records, 

or risk establishing an unfunded 

mandate. 

4. FAA Response 

The FAA acknowledges receipt of this 

comment but notes that these points and 

the associated costs are beyond the 

scope of this rulemaking. 

G. Comments Related to Regulatory 

Notices and Analyses 

The FAA received comments 

regarding costs associated with 

reporting records, the scope of 

applicability of part 111, the benefits of 

this rule, and the FAA’s assumptions 

and data concerning both costs and the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. 

1. Comments on Costs Associated With 

Reporting Historical Records 

A4A stated it agrees generally with 

the potential benefits of the proposed 

rule but asserted the FAA significantly 

underestimated the costs of the rule. 

A4A stated that it surveyed its members 

to respond to the FAA’s requests for 

comments on the impact of the 

proposed rule, but that it faced several 

challenges in collecting the information 

it sought. 

A4A noted that in the regulatory 

impact analysis of the proposed rule, 

the FAA states it anticipates most 

existing electronic record systems can 

export data through XML for uploading 

into the PRD and that carrier export 

utilities need to be configured initially 

to match the expected fields of the PRD. 

A4A said that estimating costs for what 

to report, but not how to report it, is 

extremely challenging, especially given 

the diversity of record formats over the 

15-year historical records period. A4A 

described challenges such as a lack of 

technical requirements for reporting 

records accompanying the proposal and 

the absence of a pilot program. 

A4A noted that its member survey 

resulted in 8 out of 10 members 

providing extensive information on the 

impact of the proposed rule, with 

descriptions of how the carriers would 

comply, the number of full-time 

employees that would be needed to 

comply, and cost estimates. Those eight 

members included four large part 121 

carriers and four mid-size part 121 

carriers. A4A estimated the average cost 

for a large part 121 carrier to transfer 

historical records electronically to be 

$602,875. A4A estimated the average 

cost for a mid-size part 121 carrier to 

transfer historical records to be 

$175,000. 

A4A noted that its member survey 

revealed that almost all carriers store 

electronic documents in different 

systems for different categories of 

documents. A4A suggested carriers will 

have to engage a variety of software 

experts to advise them on how to 

transfer the information that the FAA 

seeks. 

Other commenters expressed concern 

about the cost to convert historical 

records to XML. Noting that most 

operators have some form of digital 

record such as a PDF, one commenter 

said allowing bulk uploads of such 

records would alleviate the economic 

impact on small operators substantially. 

The commenter also recommended 

allowing operators to send PDF copies 

of records to the FAA, which can then 

convert them into any format the FAA 

feels is appropriate. The commenter 

recommended taking advantage of 

existing recordkeeping requirements, 

such as part 142 training center records, 

to populate the database and reduce the 

burden on part 91 operators. 

A4A also believes that the FAA 

underestimated costs for the manual 

entry of historical records. A4A stated 

that, based on its member survey, the 

FAA should use the maximum 

estimated historical records as the basis 

for determining the cost of manual entry 

of historical records into the PRD 

because that estimate more accurately 

reflects the number of manual records. 

A4A also urged the FAA to correct its 

cost-per-pilot estimate to enter manual 

records to ensure realistic manual entry 

burdens are captured. The commenter 

recommended the FAA use an average 

of 20 minutes for manual entry of a pilot 

training/checking record, 15 minutes to 

set up a new pilot in the PRD, and 10 

minutes to input manually both 

disciplinary records and termination 

events. 

A4A also commented that the 

regulatory impact analysis for the 

proposed rule did not include costs to 

retrieve, search, and review historical 

files and that the FAA limited the costs 

of manually reporting historical records 

to the cost to type the data into the PRD 

once it has been collected. The 

commenter stated this grossly 

underestimates the actual burden to air 

carriers to report historical data 

manually to the PRD, particularly for 

historical drug and alcohol testing 

records, and the FAA should include 

such burden in its analysis. A4A 

encouraged the FAA to reassess its cost 

analysis for manually reporting drug 

and alcohol testing records. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
31048 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

57Alternative 4 would require air carriers and 

operators to report present and future pilot records 

to the PRD, but continue to send historical records 

under PRIA until the PRD has 5 years of pilot 

records (by the start of 2025, the PRD would have 

data from 2020 to 2024), at which point PRIA could 

be discontinued. 85 FR 17701, March 30, 2020. 

A4A estimated the number of pilots 

who have worked at covered carriers 

since 2005 that are still alive is at least 

130,000. A4A calculated total labor 

costs of $540 to input a single pilot’s 

historical records into the PRD, then 

multiplied these labor costs by 130,000 

pilots to arrive at an estimate of 

$70,200,000 in total costs for part 121 

carriers to retrieve, search, and review 

historical documents and ensure 

sensitive information not required by 

the PRD is excluded. This estimate 

includes both manual entry and 

electronic data entry. A4A 

recommended that, given these 

substantial additional costs, the FAA 

should eliminate the requirement to 

provide historical documents or, in the 

alternative, require no more than 5 years 

of historical documents from the final 

rule compliance date. 

An individual commented on the 

FAA’s estimate for the time it would 

take to enter a pilot’s information 

manually, estimating instead that it 

would take approximately an hour per 

pilot. The commenter noted it has paper 

records, so it will have to find the 

records, sort through years of training 

certificates, and then enter records going 

back 15 years for each pilot. The 

commenter noted that 40 percent of its 

pilots have been employed with the 

company for more than 10 years. The 

commenter said that if it goes back 15 

years, it would have to enter records for 

251 part 121 pilots alone. The 

commenter noted that entering records 

for these 251 pilots would take 6.3 

weeks of doing nothing but data entry. 

The commenter called this overly 

burdensome and expensive. 

A4A recommended that the FAA 

adopt Alternative 4 from the initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis as the 

final rule.57 A4A stated that Alternative 

4 is the most effective option for 

capturing historical records. A4A stated 

that this would only require accessing 

records through both the PRD and PRIA 

for 5 years, as opposed to 2 years under 

the proposed rule. A4A stated the 

benefit of not having to input 18 years 

of pilot records would outweigh the 

burden of accessing pilot information 

through both PRIA and the PRD for 

three more years. ALPA also supported 

Alternative 4, and quoted the PRD ARC 

stating pilot records from training 

events accessed more than 5 years ago 

would be of no value to the hiring 

process. 

A4A also commented that it is crucial 

for the FAA to stand up a working group 

immediately after a final rule is 

published. Further, A4A noted that, 

even though carriers may have some 

historical records in electronic format, 

this does not guarantee they can convert 

such records for the PRD. A4A stated 

none of its members has its drug and 

alcohol records systems connected to 

other systems; accordingly, the carriers 

will have to configure separately each 

set of historical records for reporting the 

PRD. A4A estimated the costs of 

reporting historical records will 

multiply based upon the number of 

systems from which an air carrier must 

collect and report data to the PRD. 

2. FAA Response 

The FAA has updated the regulatory 

impact analysis of the final rule with 

data A4A provided for increased costs 

of reporting records to the PRD and the 

costs of searching, retrieving and 

reviewing historical records. Details are 

provided in the comment responses 

below. The FAA also updated the 

regulatory impact analysis of the final 

rule using the electronic data costs 

referred to above for part 121 operators. 

The other commenters did not submit 

data on the costs to convert historical 

records to XML. 

The FAA made the decision not to 

accept PDF because of data storage 

concerns and because personal 

information would have to be redacted; 

however, as mentioned previously, the 

FAA will provide a means to 

accomplish electronic batch upload of 

records. As discussed in section V.C., 

the PRD Act does not permit record 

reporting by part 142 training centers, as 

the PRD Act is restricted to entities that 

employed a pilot. 

In the final rule, the FAA includes the 

cost for manual entry of drug and 

alcohol testing, verification of NDR 

search, and pilot disciplinary actions, 

where required. The FAA does not agree 

that it should use the maximum 

estimated historical records as the basis 

for determining the cost of manual entry 

of historical records. The final rule 

analysis continues to use the average of 

minimum and maximum estimated 

historical records. 

The FAA includes the cost of entering 

disciplinary and termination records 

using 10 minutes as the time to enter 

each of these record types, as suggested 

by A4A. The FAA does not include the 

cost of setting up a pilot in the PRD for 

the first time, as it will occur via an 

automated script from the airman 

registry. The FAA does not agree with 

A4A’s recommendation to use 20 

minutes for manual entry of a pilot 

training record; instead, the FAA uses 

an average of 4 minutes to enter this 

type of record. This estimate of 4 

minutes does not include the time it 

might take to locate the record from the 

official record keeping system. A4A 

appears to capture this time in its 

estimate of supplemental costs, which 

includes the cost to retrieve, search and 

review historical records. The FAA 

incorporated A4A’s supplemental cost 

of $70.2 million in the final Regulatory 

Impact Assessment (RIA), available in 

the docket for this rulemaking. 

The FAA has increased the cost of 

retrieving, searching, and reviewing 

historical records for part 121 operators 

based on data provided by A4A, as 

explained below. While the FAA 

included a supplemental cost of 

reporting historical records for the 

NPRM, the FAA accepted A4A’s 

estimate that it would cost part 121 

operators $70.2 million to retrieve, 

search, and review historical documents 

and ensure sensitive information not 

required by the PRD is excluded. For the 

final rule, the FAA updated its analysis 

to include this cost for part 121 

operators. 

The FAA acknowledges the lower 

costs of Alternative 4 but believes the 

technological capabilities of the PRD 

will, in a few years, reduce concern over 

electronic upload of historical records. 

The FAA considered all comments 

received requesting a different 

interpretation of the PRD Act’s 

requirement to include historical 

records and maintains that the statute is 

explicit with respect to which records 

must be included, as discussed in 

Section V.C.12. 

The preamble of this rule includes 

discussion regarding the plans the FAA 

has for providing information to 

industry after publication of the final 

rule, beginning with the first 

compliance date for submitting a 

responsible person application, which is 

90 days after publication of the final 

rule. The FAA also commits to 

providing a method for electronic 

transfer of records prior to the sunset of 

PRIA. 

3. Comments on the Impact to Part 91 

Operators 

GAMA, NBAA, the FL Aviation Corp., 

Cummins, Inc., and more than 500 

individuals commented on the costs and 

other burdens the proposed 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements would impose on part 91 

operators. Most of these commenters 

asserted that the proposed rule would 

impose significant costs and other 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31049 

58However, estimated costs the FAA includes in 

this final rule are higher than those estimated in the 

NPRM because the FAA considered data on part 

121 costs submitted by a commenter. 

burdens on these operators with littleto-no associated benefits. 

GAMA commented that the 

administrative burden and associated 

cost of recordkeeping imposed on part 

91 operators, which are not currently 

subject to the same recordkeeping 

requirements as part 121 and part 135 

operators, is unreasonable because these 

operators typically do not benefit from 

the information in the PRD. 

NBAA stated the proposed rule lacks 

a robust analysis of the effects on part 

91 operations and ignores many 

consensus recommendations of the PRD 

ARC, resulting in a significant burden 

on numerous small entities with no 

clear nexus to part 121 carrier hiring. 

NBAA recommended that the FAA 

either remove part 91 operators from the 

rule or conduct a more accurate costbenefit analysis in accordance with the 

Administrative Procedure Act and 

Executive Order 12866. NBAA also 

disagreed with the FAA’s claim that the 

proposal would not require operators to 

collect new data for entry into the PRD 

and they and other operators pointed 

out that part 91 operators currently have 

no regulatory requirement to maintain 

certain records. These commenters 

contended that the new recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements would 

therefore require operators to revise 

completely current procedures they 

have used effectively for years, which 

will be costly. 

NBAA also commented that the FAA 

considers initial compliance for part 91 

operators but includes no annual costs 

of compliance and provides no insight 

into the assumptions that built the costs 

or analysis of part 91 training and 

checking events per year. NBAA 

asserted that the assumption that part 91 

operators maintain electronic databases 

is false. 

NASA’s Aircraft Management 

Division stated that the level of data 

provided to the PRD is excessive and 

requires a recurring enormous effort. 

The commenter noted that NASA’s 

primary records source is a paper-based 

personnel training and qualification file 

for each pilot. The commenter estimated 

that the rule’s burdensome recurring 

data requirement would add a 

significant cost to NASA of 

approximately $1 million annually. 

An individual commented that the 

FAA’s cost analysis ignores the 

increased cost to part 91 operators and 

is therefore not comparable to the 

current PRIA structure, rendering it 

useless for cost savings comparison. 

This commenter also faulted the cost 

analysis for not estimating overall costs 

on a per user basis. The commenter 

questioned whether the FAA estimated 

the total number of users and what this 

rule would mean to each one. The 

commenter said it is incorrect to suggest 

there is no societal cost when there is 

no estimate on the burden to the 

individual user, especially ones who 

must absorb additional costs (part 91), 

rather than simply increasing ticket 

prices to cover the costs, as the 

scheduled air carriers have done. 

The FL Aviation Corp. expressed 

concern that the cost of transaction 

requests will triple their current cost of 

responding to record requests. The 

commenter appears to be referring to 

user fees. The FL Aviation Corp. also 

asserted that, without any background 

data or information, the FAA’s cost 

estimate represents nothing more than 

opinions or speculation and appear 

arbitrary, especially given that part 91 

operations have never previously been 

included in the records sweep. 

4. FAA Response 

The FAA has reduced substantively 58

the reporting requirements and therefore 

costs for corporate flight departments, 

public aircraft operations, and air tour 

operators in the final rule. These 

operators will only be required to 

provide records upon request from a 

hiring air carrier, unless the records 

reflect termination or certain 

disciplinary actions, in which case these 

operators must report the records 

contemporaneously. In addition, air tour 

operators must report drug and alcohol 

records contemporaneously. 

The proposed rule required reporting 

only of records that the operator had 

accumulated; it did not propose that 

operators collect new data. The final 

rule as adopted also does not propose 

recordkeeping requirements that diverge 

significantly from PRIA; therefore, the 

FAA does not agree operators would 

have to revise current procedures, other 

than to enter records to the PRD, as 

required by the rule that they have 

accumulated. 

For the NPRM, the FAA erroneously 

assumed that corporate flight 

departments maintain all records in 

electronic databases and assumed that 

all records would transfer to the PRD in 

the first year. The FAA has reconsidered 

this assumption and, in this rule, 

includes annual costs to enter records 

manually for all operators. 

The FAA disagrees that the cost 

analysis ignores the increased cost to 

part 91 operators. The FAA detailed 

these costs in the analysis of the 

proposed rule and has updated them in 

this final rule. The FAA estimated cost 

savings due to discontinuation of PRIA 

and the costs of reporting records to the 

PRD. The FAA presents the distribution 

of costs over operator types in the 

analysis along with an estimate of the 

number of users. The FAA estimates 

some costs on a per record basis. Some 

operators may choose to pass these 

additional costs on in increased ticket 

prices and some may absorb these costs. 

Regardless, these costs are captured in 

the analysis. 

This rule does not include the user fee 

the FAA had proposed to include. 

Therefore, this rule does not estimate 

the cost of transaction requests. 

The FAA documented its assumptions 

and sources in the analysis for the 

proposed rule. When data was not 

available, the FAA relied on input from 

subject matter experts. 

5. Comments on the Benefits of the Rule 

NBAA stated all the benefits of the 

rule identified by the FAA apply to part 

121 and part 135 air carriers. NBAA said 

there are no benefits for part 91 and part 

125 operators that would be subject to 

this rule, only burdens and costs. 

A4A disagreed with the FAA’s 

assumption that one of the benefits of 

the NPRM is to lower the potential of 

inaccurate interpretation of pilot records 

by allowing for easier reading of pilot 

records, as the PRIA records might 

sometimes be handwritten and difficult 

to read. A4A said this is not a benefit 

of the PRD because the same concern 

exists with PRIA; carriers will have to 

interpret the same difficult-to-read 

handwritten files to comply with the 

PRD. A4A also identified an additional 

risk of incorrect or misinterpreted 

information being entered into the PRD 

and remaining there for the life of the 

pilot. 

6. FAA Response 

This rule responds to a statutory 

requirement and was not motivated by 

a purpose to benefit one particular 

operator type over another; instead, 

Congress directed parameters for who 

would be reporting entities and 

reviewing entities. As a result of this 

rule, operators will be better prepared to 

make informed hiring decisions to 

support aviation safety. Although files 

may still be difficult to read, the FAA 

assumes that it is not as difficult for an 

operator to interpret its own historical 

records as it would be for an operator 

to interpret another operator’s historical 

records. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
31050 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

59OpSpec A025—Extension of Due Date for 

Required Action by Notice N 8900.368, OpSpec/ 

MSpec/TSpec/LOA A025, Electronic Signatures, 

Electronic Recordkeeping Systems, and Electronic 

Manual Systems, available at https://fsims.faa.gov/ 

wdocs/notices/n8900_395.htm. 

7. Other Comments on Assumptions and 

Data 

A4A stated the FAA must revise its 

cost analysis to correct the assumption 

that if a carrier has the FAA’s approval 

for a computer-based recordkeeping 

system with OpSpec A025,59 then all 

records that carrier must upload to the 

PRD are already in an electronic format. 

A4A noted that, while a carrier must 

obtain A025 to use an electronic 

recordkeeping system to ensure the 

same data integrity used in a paper 

system, A025 authorization does not 

mean that every carrier system is 

electronic. A4A said its member survey 

revealed that many human resource files 

containing disciplinary records or 

separation records are paper-based. 

Furthermore, A4A noted that even 

carriers that store human resource 

records electronically responded that 

they would need to enter information 

manually into the PRD because human 

resources files contain sensitive 

information that cannot be shared. 

A4A noted the FAA’s estimate 

excludes transition upgrade training, 

which the FAA explained is because it 

does not know how frequently pilots 

train on new aircraft, but expects such 

training is infrequent. A4A stated the 

results of its member survey indicate 

that a mid-size and large part 121 carrier 

averages between 1,200 and 3,000 

transition training events per year. A4A 

asked the FAA to amend the analysis to 

reflect this omitted data to assess the 

true impact and cost of this rulemaking. 

8. FAA Response 

The FAA acknowledges some records 

it assumed to be entered electronically 

might have to be entered manually and 

the costs of manual entry may be 

underestimated for this reason. It is not 

clear from the A4A comment how many 

of these events will result in records 

required for the PRD. A transitiontraining curriculum consists of multiple 

training events. This number varies by 

approved training program. An event 

might be a ground school session or 

simulator session. All the events 

together make up the curriculum. After 

the pilot finishes all the events, they are 

considered to have completed the 

training curriculum. The PRD only 

accepts completion (or withdrawal) of 

the training curriculum. It does not 

accept records of each event that make 

up the curriculum. In other words, the 

PRD accepts one record documenting 

that the pilot finished the curriculum, 

not multiple records detailing each 

event in the curriculum. A4A’s 

comment is unclear concerning whether 

the basis of the estimates is the count of 

transition curricula or the number of 

events inside the curriculum. 

9. Comments on Paperwork Reduction 

Act Burden Issues 

One commenter stated that mandating 

dual recordkeeping for 2 years and 90 

days post-implementation effectively 

doubles the workload for covered 

employers, which does not meet the 

requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. Another commenter 

remarked generally that the 

requirements of the proposed rule seems 

to contradict the purpose of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. 

10. FAA Response 

PRIA is maintained until the PRD is 

populated with the minimal records 

necessary to ensure that hiring air 

carriers have access to the records they 

need and that no gap exists. However, 

if the operator updates PRD with 

records before PRIA is phased out the 

operator does not have to report records 

via PRIA. There should be no dual 

reporting requirements, because an 

operator would provide records via 

either PRIA or PRD until PRIA is phased 

out. The FAA assessed the baseline 

incremental change in costs in the 

analysis of the proposed rule, noting 

that cost savings do not begin until 

PRIA is phased out. In addition, the 

FAA acknowledged that the analysis in 

the NPRM potentially overestimates 

costs as operators can transition to PRD 

before the date when PRIA is 

discontinued, yet cost savings are not 

captured until that date. 

VI. Regulatory Notices and Analyses 

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. In 

addition, DOT rulemaking procedures 

in subpart B of 49 CFR part 5 instruct 

DOT agencies to issue a regulation upon 

a reasoned determination that benefits 

exceed costs. Second, the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) 

requires agencies to analyze the 

economic impact of regulatory changes 

on small entities. Third, the Trade 

Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96–39) 

prohibits agencies from setting 

standards that create unnecessary 

obstacles to the foreign commerce of the 

United States. In developing U.S. 

standards, this Act requires agencies to 

consider international standards and, 

where appropriate, that they be the basis 

of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–4) requires agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100 million or more annually (adjusted 

for inflation with base year of 1995). 

The FAA provides a detailed Regulatory 

Impact Analysis of this final rule in the 

docket for this rulemaking. This portion 

of the preamble summarizes the FAA’s 

analysis of the economic impacts of this 

rule. 

In conducting these analyses, the FAA 

has determined 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 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 previously. These analyses 

are summarized in this section. 

A. Regulatory Evaluation 

1. Benefits 

This rule promotes aviation safety by 

facilitating operators’ consideration of 

pilot skill and performance when 

making hiring and personnel 

management decisions by using the 

most accurate and complete pilot 

records available and by making those 

records accessible electronically. The 

rule requires use of the PRD that 

includes information maintained by the 

FAA concerning current airman 

certificates with any associated type 

ratings and current medical certificates, 

including any limitations or restrictions 

to those certificates, airman practical 

test failures, and summaries of legal 

enforcement actions. The PRD will 

contain air carrier, operator, and FAA 

records on an individual’s performance 

as a pilot for the life of the individual 

that could be used as a hiring tool in an 

air carrier’s decision-making process for 

pilot employment. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31051 

60Based on the Regulatory Impact Analysis of the 

final rule, about 88% of the historical record 

reporting costs are incurred by part 121 operators. 

61On August 1, 2010, Congress directed the 

Administrator to establish the PRD (Pub. L. 111– 

216, Section 203 (49 U.S.C. 44703(i)). OMB Circular 

A–4 asks agencies to consider costs of mandates 

based on a pre-statutory baseline. The FAA 

provides discussion of these costs to inform the 

total PRD development and regulatory costs. 

By requiring that pilot records be 

entered into the PRD and reviewed by 

the hiring air carrier, this rule will: 

• Promote aviation safety by 

facilitating operators’ consideration of 

pilot skills and performance when 

making hiring decisions by using the 

most accurate and complete pilot 

records available and by making those 

records accessible electronically. As 

previously discussed, a single algorithm 

does not exist that can tell the potential 

employer whether it should hire a pilot 

based on a ratio of satisfactory and 

unsatisfactory flight checks. However, 

providing this information 

electronically about the airman will 

assist the potential employer in making 

a hiring decision in a timelier and less 

cumbersome manner than is possible 

with PRIA. 

• Allow for speedier retrieval of pilot 

records from the PRD than is possible 

with PRIA. Under PRIA, the hiring air 

carrier requests records from sometimes 

multiple carriers and waits to receive 

the records. With the PRD, the operator 

will merely log on to the database and, 

in most cases, search for the records. 

• Lower the potential of inaccurate 

interpretation of pilot records by 

allowing for easier reading of pilot 

records, as the PRIA records might 

sometimes be handwritten and difficult 

to read. 

• Allow for easier storage and access 

of pilot records than PRIA. 

• Allow pilots to consent to release 

and review of records. 

2. Cost Savings 

This rule results in recurring annual 

cost savings to industry because the 

PRD will replace PRIA three years and 

90 days after the rule is published. 

Under PRIA, air carriers, operators, and 

pilots complete and mail, fax, or email 

forms to authorize requests for pilots’ 

records to be provided. Under the PRD, 

most of this process occurs 

electronically. Over the 10-year 

regulatory period after the effective date 

of the rule (2021–2030), the present 

value cost savings to industry is about 

$21.2 million or $3.0 million annualized 

using a seven percent discount rate. 

Using a three percent discount rate, the 

present value cost savings to industry is 

about $27.4 million over the 10-year 

period of analysis or about $3.2 million 

annualized. After the discontinuance 

three years and 90 days after the rule is 

published, the annual recurring 

industry cost savings will more than 

offset the recurring annual costs of the 

rule. 

3. Costs 

i. Net Regulatory Costs of the Rule 

After the effective date of the rule, 

operators will incur costs to report pilot 

records to the PRD and to train and 

register as users of the PRD. The FAA 

will incur costs of the rule related to the 

operations and maintenance of the PRD. 

Over a 10-year period of analysis (2021– 

2030), the rule results in present value 

net costs (costs less savings) to industry 

and the FAA of about $67.0 million or 

$9.5 million annualized using a seven 

percent discount rate. Using a three 

percent discount rate, the rule results in 

present value net costs of about $71.0 

million or about $8.3 million 

annualized. 

The cost driver of the rule is the 

reporting cost for air carriers to upload 

historical records before the 

discontinuance of PRIA three years and 

90 days after the effective date of the 

rule. These up-front costs are 

discounted less in terms of present 

values than the recurring cost savings 

that occur after the discontinuance of 

PRIA. These historical record reporting 

costs represent about 87 percent of the 

total costs of the rule.60 As discussed 

previously, the statutory requirements 

limit FAA’s discretion to reduce the 

requirements for operators to report 

historical records. This limits the FAA’s 

ability to reduce the associated costs. 

However, the cost savings from the 

discontinuance of PRIA are expected to 

pay for these high upfront costs over the 

long run as the PRD becomes widely 

used. 

ii. FAA Costs To Develop the PRD 

In addition to future regulatory costs, 

the FAA has incurred costs to prototype 

and develop the PRD since 2010.61 From 

2010 to 2020, the FAA estimates the 

present value PRD development costs 

are about $14.1 million or $1.5 million 

annualized using a seven percent 

discount rate. Using a three percent 

discount rate, the present value PRD 

development costs are about $18.0 

million over the same period or about 

$2.4 million annualized. In the context 

of analyzing the impacts of the rule, 

these are ‘‘sunk’’ costs that already 

occurred and cannot be recovered. 

These sunk costs are contrasted with 

prospective costs, which are future 

regulatory costs of the rule. The FAA 

presents these sunk costs to inform the 

public of the total PRD development 

and regulatory costs. 

4. Summary of Benefits, Costs, and Cost 

Savings 

The following table summarizes the 

benefits, costs, and cost savings of the 

rule to industry and the FAA. 

TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF BENEFITS, COSTS, AND COST SAVINGS

Benefits 

• Promotes aviation safety by facilitating operators’ consideration of pilot skill and performance when making hiring and personnel management 

decisions. 

• Provides faster retrieval of pilot records compared to PRIA. 

• Reduces inaccurate information and interpretation compared to PRIA. 

• Provides easier storage of and access to pilot records than PRIA. 

• Allows pilots to consent to release and review of records. 

Summary of Costs and Cost Savings * 

($Millions) 

Category 

10-Year 

present value 

(7%) 

Annualized 

(7%) 

10-Year 

present value 

(3%) 

Annualized 

(3%) 

Costs ........................................................................................................ 88.2 12.6 98.5 11.5 

Cost Savings ............................................................................................ (21.2 ) (3.0 ) (27.4 ) (3.2 ) 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
31052 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

Summary of Costs and Cost Savings * 

($Millions) 

Category 

10-Year 

present value 

(7%) 

Annualized 

(7%) 

10-Year 

present value 

(3%) 

Annualized 

(3%) 

Net Costs ................................................................................................. 67.0 9.5 71.0 8.3 

* Table Notes: Columns may not sum due to rounding. Savings are shown in parentheses to distinguish from costs. Estimates are provided at 

seven and three percent discount rates per OMB guidance. Industry and FAA costs are higher in the beginning of the period of analysis than industry cost savings that occur later in the period of analysis after the discontinuance of PRIA three years and 90 days after the rule is published. 

This results in larger annualized estimates of costs and net costs at a seven percent discount rate compared to a three percent discount rate. 

5. Scope of Affected Entities 

The entities affected by this final rule 

are: Part 119 certificate holders, 

fractional ownership programs, air tour 

operators, corporate flight departments, 

and PAO, as well as individual pilots. 

6. Changes to the Regulatory Impact 

Analysis Since the Proposed Rule 

The FAA updated its analysis for 

changes incorporated in the final rule 

and additional information and data 

identified during the comment period. 

The following is a summary of these 

changes. 

• The analysis no longer includes the 

impacts of user fees. Industry will not 

incur user fees under the final rule. For 

the proposed rule, the FAA estimated 

the 10-year present value of the user 

fees were about $13.2 million or $1.9 

million annualized using a 7 percent 

discount rate in 2016 constant dollars. 

Using a 3 percent discount rate, the 

present value of the user fees were about 

$16.3 million over 10 years or about 

$1.9 million annualized. 

• The analysis reflects reduced PRD 

reporting requirements that reduce 

industry costs in the final rule 

compared to the proposal for air tour 

operators, public aircraft operations and 

corporate flight departments. 

• The analysis incorporated 

additional data from commenters to 

update costs for reporting historical 

records to the PRD, increasing the 

estimates of costs under the final rule as 

compared to the preliminary analysis of 

the proposed rule. In the proposed rule 

and the preliminary Regulatory Impact 

Analysis, the FAA requested comments 

and additional data on costs and data 

uncertainties. 

• Reporting of records begins one 

year after the rule is published rather 

than beginning in the year of 

publication of the rule, providing more 

time for operators to prepare to report. 

• Reporting of historical records back 

to year 2015 occurs in year 2 and the 

remainder in year 3, rather than an even 

distribution over 2 years. 

• The analysis uses updated wage 

data. 

The following table compares the net 

costs of the proposed rule as published, 

the net cost of the proposed rule with 

updates for cost data received from 

public comments, and the costs of the 

final rule with changes in requirements 

to reduce costs in addition to updates 

for cost data received from public 

comments. 

TABLE 4—COMPARISON OF NET COSTS: PROPOSED RULE AND FINAL RULE

[$Million] 

Net costs Proposed rule Proposed rule Final rule 

10-Year Present Value (7%) ....................................................................................................... 12.8 80.8 67.0 

Annualized (7%) .......................................................................................................................... 1.8 11.5 9.5 

10-Year Present Value (3%) ....................................................................................................... 11.5 87.8 71.0 

Annualized (3%) .......................................................................................................................... 1.4 10.3 8.3 

* Updated for data from public comments. 

+ Updated for changes in requirements and data from public comments. 

The FAA analyzed the impacts of this 

rule based on the best publicly available 

data at the time of this writing. The FAA 

acknowledges uncertainty exists in 

estimating the costs of this rule, given 

the variety of operators and recordkeeping practices. 

The analysis of this rule reflects 

operator and industry conditions that 

predate the COVID–19 public health 

emergency. While there is currently a 

lack of data to forecast the timing of 

recovery from COVID–19 impacts 

relative to implementation of the rule, 

the analysis provides information on the 

types of impacts that may be 

experienced in the future as the 

economy returns to baseline levels. 

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, 

Section 604 of the Act requires agencies 

to prepare a Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis describing the impact of final 

rules on small entities. 

The FAA has determined this final 

rule will have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Therefore, under the 

requirements in Section 604 of the RFA, 

the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

must address: 

• A statement of the need for, and 

objectives of, the rule; 

• A statement of the significant issues 

raised by the public comments in 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31053 

62Referred to as ‘‘the PRD Act’’ in this rule. 

response to the initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis, a statement of the 

assessment of the Agency of such issues, 

and a statement of any changes made in 

the proposed rule as a result of such 

comments; 

• The response of the Agency to any 

comments filed by the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration in response to the 

proposed rule, and a detailed statement 

of any change made to the proposed rule 

in the final rule as a result of the 

comments; 

• A description of and an estimate of 

the number of small entities to which 

the rule will apply or an explanation of 

why no such estimate is available; 

• A description of the projected 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

compliance requirements of the rule, 

including an estimate of the classes of 

small entities which will be subject to 

the requirement and the type of 

professional skills necessary for 

preparation of the report or record; and 

• A description of the steps the 

Agency has taken to minimize the 

significant economic impact on small 

entities consistent with the stated 

objectives of applicable statutes, 

including a statement of the factual, 

policy, and legal reasons for selecting 

the alternative adopted in the final rule 

and why each one of the other 

significant alternatives to the rule 

considered by the Agency which affect 

the impact on small entities was 

rejected. 

1. Statement of the Need for and 

Objectives of the Rule 

Following the Continental Flight 3407 

accident, Congress enacted the Airline 

Safety and Federal Aviation 

Administration Extension Act of 2010, 

Public Law 111–216 (Aug. 1, 2010).62

Section 203 of the PRD Act required the 

FAA to establish an electronic pilot 

records database and provided for the 

subsequent sunset of PRIA. The PRD 

Act requires the FAA to ensure the 

database contains records from various 

sources related to individual pilot 

performance and to issue implementing 

regulations. It also amended PRIA by 

requiring the FAA to ensure operators 

evaluate pilot records in the database 

prior to hiring individuals as pilots. 

Congress has since enacted the FAA 

Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 

2016 (FESSA), Public Law 114–190 

(July 15, 2016). Section 2101 of FESSA 

required the FAA to establish an 

electronic pilot records database by 

April 30, 2017. This final rule 

implements those statutory mandates. 

2. Statement of the Significant Issues 

Raised by the Public Comments in 

Response to the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis, a Statement of the 

Assessment of the Agency of Such 

Issues, and a Statement of Any Changes 

Made in the Proposed Rule as a Result 

of Such Comments 

A significant issue commenters raised 

was the concern that the proposed rule 

would impose significant burdens on 

small businesses with little-to-no 

associated benefits or could put small 

companies or flight departments out of 

business. Commenters were concerned 

about corporate flight departments and 

public aircraft operations, which the 

FAA considered along with air tour 

operators as potential gateway operators 

(i.e., operators from which pilots would 

transfer to air carriers). Commenters, in 

addition to describing the excessive 

burden that the rule would impose, 

stated that it was infrequent that a pilot 

would leave employment with these 

types of operators to seek employment 

with an air carrier. The FAA assessed 

these concerns and reduced the burden 

for these operators by requiring only 

that these operators report records upon 

request from a hiring air carrier, with an 

exception requiring that they report 

contemporaneous termination records 

and certain disciplinary records. 

Contemporaneous reporting of drug and 

alcohol records by air tour operators 

would also be required, even in the 

absence of a request for them. 

3. The Response of the Agency to Any 

Comments Filed by the Chief Counsel 

for Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration in Response to the 

Proposed Rule, and a Detailed 

Statement of Any Change Made to the 

Proposed Rule in the Final Rule as a 

Result of the Comments 

The Agency received no comments 

from the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 

the Small Business Administration. 

4. A Description of and an Estimate of 

the Number of Small Entities to Which 

the Rule Will Apply or an Explanation 

of Why No Such Estimate Is Available 

This rule will affect substantial 

numbers of small entities operating 

under parts 91K, 121 and 135, air tour 

operators, entities conducting public 

aircraft operations, and corporate flight 

departments. There are approximately 

four dozen small part 121 carriers and 

two thousand small part 135 carriers 

and operators. All part 125 operators are 

small. Air tour operators are also 

typically small. These operators may 

consist of a couple of pilots flying less 

than five passengers per air tour. The 

FAA estimates that all fractional 

ownerships are large with revenues 

exceeding $16.5 million. The FAA also 

estimates that entities conducting PAO 

are associated with large governmental 

jurisdictions. The FAA assumes that any 

corporation that could afford a corporate 

flight department would have in excess 

of $16.5 million in revenues and is 

therefore a large entity. The table below 

offers more details on the operator types 

affected. 

TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF SMALL ENTITIES IMPACTED

Type/part Number of 

entities NAICS code 63 SBA size standard Size 

Part 121 Air Carriers.76 481111—Scheduled Passenger Air Transportation; 

481112—Scheduled Freight Air Transportation; 481211— 

Nonscheduled Chartered Passenger Air Transportation; 

481212—Nonscheduled Chartered Freight Air Transportation.

Less than 1,500 

employees.

45 small, 31 large. 

Part 135 Air Carriers and Operators.2,053 481111—Scheduled Passenger Air Transportation; 

481112—Scheduled Freight Air Transportation; 481211— 

Nonscheduled Chartered Passenger Air Transportation; 

481212—Nonscheduled Chartered Freight Air Transportation.

Less than 1,500 

employees.

2050 small, 3 large. 

Part 125 Operators 70 481219—Other Nonscheduled Air Transportation ................. Less than $16.5M 

in revenues.

All small. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
31054 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

63For definitions of the NAICS codes please refer 

to 2017 NAICS Manual, pg. 380 https://

www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/2017NAICS/2017_

NAICS_Manual.pdf. Also, please note that these 

definitions may not completely align with the 

definitions set out in the FAA Code of Federal 

Regulations. 

TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF SMALL ENTITIES IMPACTED—Continued 

Type/part Number of 

entities NAICS code 63 SBA size standard Size 

Part 91.147 Air 

Tour Operators.

1,091 481219—Other Nonscheduled Air Transportation ................. Less than $16.5M 

in revenues.

All small. 

Part 91.K Fractional 

Ownership.

7 481219—Other Nonscheduled Air Transportation ................. Less than $16.5M 

in revenues.

All large. 

Public Use Aircraft 323 481219—Other Nonscheduled Air Transportation ................. Large Governmental Jurisdictions.All large. 

Corporate Flight 

Departments.

1,413 481219—Other Nonscheduled Air Transportation ................. Less than $16.5M 

in revenues.

All large. 

* Table Note: Size information is based on data available from eVID (FAA Management Information System, Vital Information Subsystem). 

While this rule will affect a 

substantial number of small entities, the 

FAA maintains that small entities will 

be affected to a lesser extent than large 

entities. This is because costs are a 

function of size. For instance, costs to 

enter data on pilots manually depends 

on the number of pilots who work and 

have worked for the operator. Both air 

tour operators and part 125 operators 

are comprised entirely of small 

businesses. The FAA estimated that an 

average of about 3 pilots work for an air 

tour operator and 10 pilots for a part 125 

operator. Air tour operators would not 

be required to report historical records 

and would incur a cost of $43 per 

operator per year (or about $14 per pilot 

per year), and part 125 operators would 

incur a cost of $725 per operator (or 

about $72 per pilot) per year. 

5. A Description of the Projected 

Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 

Compliance Requirements of the Rule, 

Including an Estimate of the Classes of 

Small Entities Which Will Be Subject to 

the Requirement and the Type of 

Professional Skills Necessary for 

Preparation of the Report or Record 

The rule requires air carriers, certain 

operators holding out to the public, 

entities conducting public aircraft 

operations, air tour operators, fractional 

ownerships, and corporate flight 

departments to enter relevant data on 

individuals employed as pilots into the 

PRD. The records entered into the PRD 

include those related to: Pilot training, 

qualification, proficiency, or 

professional competence of the 

individual, including comments and 

evaluations made by a check pilot; drug 

and alcohol testing; disciplinary action; 

release from employment or resignation, 

termination, or disqualification with 

respect to employment; and the 

verification of a search date of the 

National Driver Register. Requirements 

for corporate flight departments, air tour 

operators and public aircraft operations, 

many of which are small businesses, 

have been reduced in the final rule to 

only require reporting of most records 

upon request. Contemporaneous 

reporting must occur for records 

concerning termination and disciplinary 

actions for public aircraft and air tour 

operators and corporate flight 

departments. In addition, drug and 

alcohol records for air tour operators are 

also always required. The types of 

professional skills needed are clerical 

skills for data entry, computer skills for 

electronic data transfer, management 

pilot skills for reviewing and 

summarizing pilot records, training and 

development skills, and human resource 

management skills. 

6. A Description of the Steps the Agency 

Has Taken To Minimize the Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities 

Consistent With the Stated Objectives of 

Applicable Statutes, Including a 

Statement of the Factual, Policy, and 

Legal Reasons for Selecting the 

Alternative Adopted in the Final Rule 

and Why Each One of the Other 

Significant Alternatives to the Rule 

Considered by the Agency Which Affect 

the Impact on Small Entities Was 

Rejected 

By reducing reporting requirements 

on public aircraft and air tour operators 

and corporate flight departments, many 

of which are small businesses, the 

Agency has minimized the significant 

economic impact on small entities. This 

does not contradict the PRD Act. 

The FAA considered the following 

four alternatives in Regulatory 

Flexibility Determination section of the 

proposed rule. In Alternative 1, the FAA 

considered requiring all of the past pilot 

historical data. This alternative was 

rejected because the FAA determined 

the proposed requirement would be 

sufficient to comply with the statute. In 

Alternative 2, the FAA considered other 

options for the form and manner in 

which historical records could be 

submitted to the PRD by operators 

employing pilots. These options 

included permitting the submission of 

records in portable document format 

(PDF), JPEG, bitmap (BMP), or other 

similar electronic file formats; the 

submission of records using coded 

XML; or the submission of specified 

information through direct manual data 

entry. The FAA rejected this alternative 

because it would result in extraneous 

and possibly protected or sensitive 

information to be submitted to the PRD, 

could impose a burden on the FAA to 

review, and is beyond the FAA does not 

think Congress intended PRD to be a 

repository of all the information 

available on a pilot. In Alternative 3, the 

FAA considered interpreting the PRD 

Act broadly and requiring all employers 

of pilots to comply with the proposed 

PRD requirements, regardless of 

whether the information would be 

useful to hiring air carriers or not. The 

FAA rejected this alternative because it 

interpreted the requirement to apply to 

those most likely to employ pilots who 

might subsequently apply to become air 

carrier pilots. In Alternative 4, the FAA 

considered requiring operators report 

present and future pilot records to the 

PRD, but continue to send historical 

records under PRIA until the PRD has 

5 years of pilot records, at which point 

PRIA could be discontinued. The FAA 

rejected this because the lack of a 

singular database would be detrimental 

to the purpose of the rulemaking and 

diminish efficiency of review of pilot 

records by employers who would have 

to access records through both PRIA and 

PRD. At the time of the NPRM, the FAA 

presented Alternative 4 as a potentially 

legally permissible option, but on 

further review, determined that this was 

not the case. 

Below is a more detailed description 

of Alternative 2 and the reasons it was 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31055 

64Submitting PDF, JPEG, BMP or similar 

electronic formats might be less costly because the 

operator would not have to transcribe records from 

one format to another. 

65The FAA estimates the change in burden and 

cost for these amendments over three years to align 

with the three-year approval and renewal cycle for 

most information collections. 

rejected. This alternative might have 

affected the impact on small entities. 

The FAA considered options for the 

form and manner in which historical 

records could be submitted to the PRD 

by air carriers and operators employing 

pilots. These alternative options 

included permitting the submission of 

records in portable document format 

(PDF), JPEG, bitmap (BMP), or other 

similar electronic file formats; the 

submission of records using coded 

XML; or the submission of specified 

information through direct manual data 

entry. 

While the submission of records in 

PDF, JPEG, BMP, or other similar 

electronic file formats might be most 

expedient and least costly 64 for some air 

carriers and operators, the FAA rejected 

this option for multiple reasons. First, 

the PRD ARC highlighted an issue with 

the contents of historical records, 

indicating that many historical records 

maintained by the aviation industry 

contain information ‘‘far outside’’ the 

scope of the PRD. The acceptance of 

such file formats (e.g., PDF, JPEG, or 

BMP) would allow a large volume of 

extraneous data to be submitted to the 

PRD, possibly including protected or 

sensitive information on individuals or 

an air carrier or operator. The FAA 

would be required to review each 

individual pilot record and redact 

information as appropriate. This review 

may cause the availability of the 

uploaded records to be delayed until 

such time that the FAA could redact 

inappropriate information, if any 

existed within the file. 

In addition, the PRD should serve as 

an effective tool to assist an air carrier 

or operator in making hiring decisions, 

not as a catch-all repository for all 

existing information maintained by 

employers of pilots, or as a replacement 

for existing air carrier and operator 

recordkeeping systems. If an employer 

transmitted scanned documents or 

photographs of a pilot’s record to the 

PRD, a hiring employer could be 

overwhelmed by the amount of 

information provided for review, some 

of which might not be relevant to the 

hiring decision and could impede the 

hiring employer’s ability to consider 

relevant information quickly and 

efficiently. 

The final alternative adopted is what 

was proposed in the NPRM with 

changes, one of which reduces record 

reporting requirements for PAO, air tour 

operators, and corporate flight 

departments. The factual, legal, and 

policy reasons for the alternative 

adopted in the final rule are found in 

the preamble discussion preceding this 

section. 

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. This rule addresses a 

Congressional mandate to promote the 

safety of the American public and it 

does not create an unnecessary obstacle 

to foreign commerce. 

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 inflationadjusted 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 Unfunded 

Mandates Assessment Reform Act do 

not apply. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires agencies to 

consider the impact of paperwork and 

other information collection burdens 

imposed on the public. According to the 

1995 amendments to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (5 CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), 

an agency may not collect or sponsor 

the collection of information, nor may it 

impose an information collection 

requirement unless it displays a 

currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) control number. 

This action contains amendments to 

the existing information collection 

requirements previously approved 

under OMB Control Number 2120–0607. 

As required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 

3507(d)), the FAA has submitted these 

information collection amendments to 

OMB for its review. 

Summary: The rule requires part 119 

certificate holders, entities conducting 

public aircraft operations, air tour 

operators, fractional ownerships, and 

corporate flight departments to enter 

relevant data on individuals employed 

as pilots into the PRD. The records 

entered into the PRD include those 

related to: Pilot training, qualification, 

proficiency, or professional competence 

of the individual, including comments 

and evaluations made by a check pilot; 

drug and alcohol testing; disciplinary 

action; release from employment or 

resignation, termination, or 

disqualification with respect to 

employment; and the verification of a 

query of the National Driver Register. 

Use: The information collected in 

accordance with 44703(i) and 

maintained in the Pilot Records 

Database will be used by hiring air 

carriers to evaluate the qualification of 

an individual prior to making a hiring 

determination for a pilot in accordance 

with 44703(i)(1). 

The FAA summarizes the changes in 

burden hours and costs by subpart 

relative to the interim compliance dates 

of the rule. As previously discussed, air 

carriers and other operators currently 

comply with PRIA. The publication of 

this rule begins the transition to use of 

the PRD. For a modest duration of time, 

continued compliance with PRIA is 

required, to ensure appropriate, 

complete transition. The FAA also made 

changes to the regulatory text for 

compliance dates and added interim 

compliance markers in order to facilitate 

a smooth transition. These changes are 

discussed further in Sections V.A.2 and 

V.E. Where practical the FAA presents 

burden and costs over three years as 

typically presented for estimates of 

burden and costs for collections of 

information.65

1. Subpart A General 

i. Section 111.15 Application for 

Database Access 

Air carriers and other operators 

subject to the rule will submit 

application for database access 90 days 

after the publication of the rule. The 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
31056 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

66 49 U.S.C. 44703(h). 

table below presents the number of 

users expected to apply for access to the 

PRD, the estimated time it will take each 

user to register, the hourly rate of the 

persons registering, and the estimated 

hour burden for all users to register. 

TABLE 6—BURDEN FOR APPLICATION FOR DATABASE ACCESS * 

Users expected to apply/register Respondents Hourly rate Time to 

register Total costs Total hours 

Average 

costs 

per year * 

Average 

hours 

per year * 

Responsible persons ............................................................. 5,033 $91.33 0.50 $229,832 2,517 $76,611 839 

Pilots ...................................................................................... 175,860 46.28 0.33 2,685,804 58,034 268,580 5,803 

Authorized Individuals ........................................................... 10,066 91.33 0.50 459,664 5,033 153,221 1,678 

Proxies .................................................................................. 1,904 91.33 0.50 86,946 952 28,982 317

Total ............................................................................... 192,863 .................... .................... 3, 462,246 66,536 527,394 8,637 

* Table Notes: See the Regulatory Impact Analysis available in the docket for details on the hourly rates and costs. Average costs and hours are three-year 

averages. 

2. Subpart B—Accessing and Evaluating 

Records 

i. Section 111.240 Verification of 

Motor Vehicle Driving Records 

Air carriers and participating 

operators must be able to provide 

supporting documentation to the 

Administrator upon request that a 

search of the NDR was conducted, and 

that documentation must be kept for 

five years. The FAA considers this 

burden de minimis. 

3. Subpart C—Reporting of Records by 

Air Carriers and Operators 

Each operator will report to the PRD 

all records required by this subpart for 

each individual employed as a pilot in 

the form and manner prescribed by the 

Administrator. 

Subpart C of part 111 requires all part 

119 certificate holders, fractional 

ownership operators, persons 

authorized to conduct air tour 

operations in accordance with 14 CFR 

91.147, persons operating a corporate 

flight department, entities conducting 

public aircraft operations, and trustees 

in bankruptcy to enter relevant data on 

individuals employed as pilots into the 

PRD. Relevant data includes: Training, 

qualification and proficiency records; 

final disciplinary action records; records 

concerning separation of employment; 

drug and alcohol testing records; and 

verification of motor vehicle driving 

record search and evaluation. 

Under the Pilot Records Improvement 

Act (PRIA), operators are required to 

provide these records to another 

operator upon request; therefore, this 

rule will not require collection of new 

information.66 This action contains 

amendments to the existing information 

collection requirements previously 

approved under OMB Control Number 

2120–0607. Under this existing 

information collection, which is 

associated with PRIA and PRD, 

operators are currently required to 

maintain certain records in accordance 

with regulatory requirements and to 

maintain records that would be subject 

to PRIA in order to respond to PRIA 

requests. Under this action, industry 

would be required to report to the PRD 

those records that they are already 

required to collect. Therefore, the FAA 

has determined that this action amends 

the existing information collection only 

so far as to require submission of 

information to request access to the 

database and electronic or manual 

submission of the records already 

collected by industry. We estimate that 

burden here. 

The rule requires that one year after 

publication new records be reported to 

the PRD. New records are all records 

generated as of that date. 

As previously discussed, there are 

two methods for reporting data to the 

PRD. The first method is to transmit 

data electronically using an automated 

utility such as XML, so it can be read 

by both the user and the PRD. The 

second method is manual data entry 

using the same pre-established data 

field forms for each record type. The 

FAA estimated how many operators will 

likely report data directly from their 

own electronic databases. The FAA also 

estimated how many operators will 

likely enter data manually to the PRD. 

The following discussion summarizes 

the estimates of the burden and the cost 

of reporting records to the PRD. 

i. Present and Future Record Reporting 

Air carriers and operators will incur 

a burden to transfer pilot records 

electronically from their databases to 

the PRD. The burden includes the time 

required for operators to develop an 

encoding program to transfer records 

from their electronic databases via an 

automated utility to appropriate fields 

within the PRD. 

The following table presents the 

number of respondents (operators), 

estimated hours, hourly rate, and the 

cost of electronic reporting, for 

electronic reporting of present and 

future records, both one-time burden 

and annual updating burden. 

TABLE 7—ELECTRONIC REPORTING OF PRESENT AND FUTURE RECORDS * 

Operator type Respondents Hours per 

respondent Hourly rate 

Initial cost 

for 

electronic 

reporting 

Annual cost 

for 

electronic 

reporting 

Initial hours 

for 

electronic 

reporting/ 

year 

Annual 

hours 

Small 121 .............................................................................. 51 20 $120 $122,400 $76,500 340 1,020 

Mid-size 121 .......................................................................... 13 35 75 34,125 19,500 152 260 

Large 121 .............................................................................. 4 400 89 142,400 6,000 533 80 

Total 121 ........................................................................ 68 455 .................... 298,925 102,000 1,025 1,360 

Small 135 .............................................................................. 234 20 120 561,600 351,000 1,560 4,680 

Mid-size 135 .......................................................................... 2 35 75 5,250 3,000 23 40 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31057 

TABLE 7—ELECTRONIC REPORTING OF PRESENT AND FUTURE RECORDS *—Continued 

Operator type Respondents Hours per 

respondent Hourly rate 

Initial cost 

for 

electronic 

reporting 

Annual cost 

for 

electronic 

reporting 

Initial hours 

for 

electronic 

reporting/ 

year 

Annual 

hours 

Total 135 ........................................................................ 236 55 .................... 566,850 354,000 1,583 4,720 

Small 125 .............................................................................. 18 20 120 43,200 27,000 120 360 

Total 125 ........................................................................ 18 20 .................... 43,200 27,000 120 360 

Part 91K ................................................................................ 4 1,897 95 720,800 6,000 2,529 80 

Total 91K ........................................................................ 4 1,897 .................... 720,800 6,000 2,529 80 

Total ........................................................................ 326 2,427 .................... 1,629,775 489,000 5,258 6,520 

* Table Notes: See the Regulatory Impact Analysis available in the docket for more details. Estimates may not total due to rounding. 

The following table summarizes the 

burden and costs for operators to enter 

present and future pilot records to the 

PRD manually. 

TABLE 8—MANUAL ENTRY OF PRESENT AND FUTURE RECORDS

Type of operations Hours Cost Respondents 

Part 121 ....................................................................................................................................... 141 $12,269 8 

Part 135 ....................................................................................................................................... 6,993 609,006 1,817 

Part 125 ....................................................................................................................................... 192 16,654 52 

Air Tours ...................................................................................................................................... 16 1,464 1,091 

Part 91K ....................................................................................................................................... 214 18,552 3 

PAO ............................................................................................................................................. 21 1,831 323 

Corporate Flight Department ....................................................................................................... 106 9,265 1,413 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 7,683 669,041 4,707 

Average ................................................................................................................................ 2,561 223,014 1,569 

ii. Historical Record Reporting 

The rule requires that historical 

records will be reported to the PRD 

beginning one year after publication of 

the final rule. Parts 121 and 135 air 

carriers will report historical records 

they have maintained back to August 1, 

2005 through that date. Parts 125 and 

135 operators and 91K fractional 

ownerships will report historical 

records they have maintained back to 

August 1, 2010 through one year after 

publication of the final rule. Those 

operators with approved electronic 

databases will transfer data 

electronically. The table below 

summarizes the number of respondents, 

burden hours, and the one-time cost of 

electronic reporting. 

TABLE 9—BURDEN OF ELECTRONIC REPORTING HISTORICAL RECORDS * 

Type of operations/ 

size groupings Respondents Hours/ Respondent Hourly rate 

Electronic 

reporting 

costs 

Electronic 

reporting 

hours 

Small 121 ............................................................................. 51 20 $120 $122,400 1,020 

Mid-size 121 ......................................................................... 13 2,333 75 2,275,000 30,333 

Large 121 ............................................................................. 4 6,774 89 2,411,500 32,154 

Total part 121 (1) .......................................................... 68 9,127 ........................ 4,808,900 63,507 

Small 135 ............................................................................. 226 20 $120 542,400 4,521 

Mid-size 135 ......................................................................... 2 70 75 10,500 141 

Total part 135 ............................................................... 228 90 ........................ $552,900 4,599 

Small part 125 ...................................................................... 18 20 $120 43,200 360 

Total part 125 ............................................................... 18 20 ........................ $43,200 360 

Part 91K ............................................................................... 4 385 $95 146,200 1,539 

Total Part 91K ............................................................... 4 385 ........................ $146,200 1,539 

Total Burden ................................................................. 318 9,622 ........................ $5,551,200 70,068 

* Table Notes: (1) Includes carriers certificated under both parts 121 and part 135. Estimates may not total due to rounding. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
31058 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

The following table summarizes the 

burden and costs for operators to 

manually enter historical records to the 

PRD. 

TABLE 10—MANUAL ENTRY OF HISTORICAL RECORDS

Type of operations Respondents Total hours Total cost 

Part 121 ....................................................................................................................................... 18 1,439,468 $71,025,356 

Part 125 ....................................................................................................................................... 33 853 80,370 

Part 135 ....................................................................................................................................... 1,912 95,354 9,162,087 

Part 91K ....................................................................................................................................... 5 5,748 544,279 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 1,968 1,541,423 80,812,091 

iii. Reporting Pilot Employment History 

In addition to operators reporting 

pilot records, pilots will be required to 

enter five years of employment history 

at the time they give their consent for an 

air carrier to review their records. The 

PRD will provide the pilot an electronic 

form including a pull down menu 

allowing access to air carriers, which 

should make it efficient for a pilot to 

complete the employment history form. 

If the former employer is on the list, the 

data prefills from FAA data. In the case 

that a former employer is not available 

through the menu, the pilot can add the 

name of the employer and fill in the 

data. The FAA estimates it will take a 

pilot an average of 2 minutes to 

complete their employment history. The 

following table shows total costs for 

pilots to enter their employment history. 

TABLE 11—BURDEN AND COST FOR REPORTING PILOT EMPLOYMENT HISTORY

Number of pilots Hourly rate 

Time to 

complete 

employment 

history 

Cost to 

complete 

employment 

history 

175,860 ........................................................................................................................................ $46.28 2 mins $271,293 

iv. Request for Deviation 

Operators may request a deviation 

from the historical records reporting 

based on a determination that a delay in 

compliance, due to circumstances 

beyond control of the entity reporting 

historical records, would not adversely 

affect safety. While the deviation is in 

effect, the reporting operator would 

report records upon request under PRIA. 

The FAA does not envision that it 

would grant deviation authority past the 

sunset date of PRIA, but if that situation 

were to occur, the FAA expects that an 

operator would still be required to 

report individual pilot records upon 

request manually to the PRD during the 

term of the delay in uploading those 

records electronically. 

The FAA estimates that one percent of 

part 121 and part 135 operators may 

request such a deviation in years 2 and 

3 after the publication of the final rule. 

TABLE 12—DEVIATION REQUESTS

Operator type Respondents Hours Hourly rate Total hours Total cost 

Part 121 ............................................................................... 0.76 2 $87.04 1.52 $132 

Part 135 ............................................................................... 20.53 2 87.04 41.06 3,574 

Total .............................................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ 42.58 3,706 

The following table summarizes the 

total reporting burden and costs for the 

first three years after the publication 

date of the rule. 

TABLE 13—BURDEN FOR FIRST THREE YEARS

[After the publication of the rule] * 

Section Respondents 

hours 

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total 

Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost 

§ 111.15 Annual Registration burden ... 69,761 14,305 $1,045,051 5,803 $268,563 5,803 $268,563 25,911 $1,582,177 

§ 111.205(a) Reporting Present and 

Future Records: 

Electronic Reporting: 

Initial costs ....................................... 326 .............. .................... 15,773 1,629,775 .............. .................... 15,773 1,629,775 

Annual costs .................................... 326 .............. .................... 6,520 489,000 6,520 489,000 13,040 978,000 

Manual Data Entry: 

Annual costs .................................... 4,707 .............. .................... 3,775 328,789 3,798 330,787 7,573 659,776 

§ 111.255 Historical Record Reporting: 

Electronic Reporting ................................ 318 .............. .................... 23,356 5,551,200 .............. .................... 23,356 5,551,200 

Manual Data Entry .................................. 1,968 .............. .................... 770,712 40,406,046 770,712 40,406,046 1,541,424 80,812,092 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31059 

TABLE 13—BURDEN FOR FIRST THREE YEARS—Continued 

[After the publication of the rule] * 

Section Respondents 

hours 

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total 

Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost 

§ 111.310 Written consent (Employment History) ....................................... 17,586 .............. .................... 5,862 27,129 5,862 27,129 11,724 54,259 

§ 111.255 Deviation request ................. 2,129 .............. .................... 43 3,706 43 3,706 85 7,412 

Total ................................................. 97,121 14,305 1,045,051 831,843 48,704,408 792,738 41,525,231 1,638,886 91,274,691 

* Estimates may not total due to rounding. 

4. Effects of Reduced Burden From the 

Discontinuation of the Pilot Records 

Improvement Act 

The PRIA will be discontinued three 

years and 90 days after the effective date 

of the proposed Pilot Records Database. 

Once PRIA is discontinued there will be 

cost savings, which are captured in the 

analysis associated with this final rule. 

The following table provides a three 

year analysis of net burden and cost 

savings for the amended collection of 

information once PRIA is discontinued. 

TABLE 14—REDUCED BURDEN FROM DISCONTINUATION OF PILOT RECORDS IMPROVEMENT ACT * 

Section Respondents 

Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Total 

Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost 

§ 111.15 Annual Registration burden 52,758 5,803 $268,563 5,803 $268,563 5,803 $268,563 17,409 $805,689 

§ 111.205 Reporting Present and Future Records: 

Electronic Data Transfer ....................... 326 6,520 489,000 6,520 489,000 6,520 489,000 19,560 1,467,000 

Manual Data Entry ................................ 4,707 3,881 337,996 3,894 339,100 3,904 340,097 11,679 1,017,193 

§ 111.310 Written Consent (Employment History) ..................................... 17,586 586 27,129 586 27,129 586 27,129 1,759 81,388 

Total Cost ....................................... ........................ 16,790 1,122,688 16,803 1,123,792 16,813 1,124,789 50,407 3,371,270 

§ 111.5 Discontinuation of PRIA— 

Total Savings ..................................... 101,999 31,831 4,813,969 31,831 4,813,969 31,831 4,813,969 95,493 14,441,908 

Net Total Savings .......................... ........................ (15,041) (3,691,281) (15,028) (3,690,177) (15,018) (3,689,180) (45,087) (11,070,638) 

* Estimates may not total due to rounding. 

Individuals and organizations may 

send comments on the information 

collection requirement to the Office of 

Management and Budget, Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Attention: Desk Officer for FAA, New 

Executive Building, Room 10202, 725 

17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20053 

by July 12, 2021. 

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 determined no ICAO Standards and 

Recommended Practices correspond to 

these proposed 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 5–6.6f and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

H. Privacy Analysis 

The FAA conducted a privacy impact 

assessment (PIA) in accordance with 

section 208 of the E-Government Act of 

2002, Public Law 107–347, 116 Stat. 

2889. The FAA examined the effect the 

final rule may have on collecting, 

storing, and disseminating personally 

identifiable information (PII) for use by 

operators subject to this final rule in 

making hiring decisions. A copy of the 

PIA will be included in the docket for 

this rulemaking and will be available at 

http://www.transportation.gov/privacy. 

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 

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, 

does not have federalism implications. 

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The FAA analyzed this final 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 is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under the 

executive order and it is not 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 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 this 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
31060 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

action would have no effect on 

international regulatory cooperation. 

VIII. How To Obtain Additional 

Information 

A. Rulemaking Documents 

An electronic copy of a rulemaking 

document may be obtained by using the 

internet— 

1. Search the Federal eRulemaking 

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

2. Visit the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies web page at http://

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or 

3. Access the Government Printing 

Office’s web page at http://

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/. 

Copies may also be obtained by 

sending a request (identified by notice, 

amendment, or docket number of this 

rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 

ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20591, or by calling 

(202) 267–9677. 

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 (SBREFA) of 

1996 requires the FAA to comply with 

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, visit http://www.faa.gov/ 

regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_

act/. 

List of Subjects 

14 CFR Part 11 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

14 CFR Part 91 

Air taxis, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation 

safety, Charter flights, Public aircraft, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

14 CFR Part 111 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Air carriers, Air taxis, 

Aircraft, Airmen, Air operators, Alcohol 

abuse, Aviation safety, Charter flights, 

Drug abuse, Public aircraft, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

The Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

amends chapter I of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 11—GENERAL RULEMAKING 

PROCEDURES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 11 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40101, 

40103, 40105, 40109, 40113, 44110, 44502, 

44701–44702, 44711, 46102, and 51 U.S.C. 

50901–50923. 

■ 2. Effective August 9, 2021, amend 

§ 11.201 in the table in paragraph (b) by 

revising the entry for ‘‘Part 111’’ to read 

as follows: 

§ 11.201 Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) control numbers assigned under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

14 CFR part or section 

identified and described 

Current OMB 

control No. 

* * * * * 

Part 111 ................................ 2120–0607 

* * * * * 

PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND 

FLIGHT RULES 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 91 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40101, 

40103, 40105, 40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 

44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 

44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 

46504, 46506–46507, 47122, 47508, 47528– 

47531, 47534, Pub. L. 114–190,130 Stat. 615 

(49 U.S.C. 44703 note); articles 12 and 29 of 

the Convention on International Civil 

Aviation (61 Stat. 1180), (126 Stat. 11). 

§ 91.1051 [Removed] 

■ 4. Effective September 9, 2024, 

§ 91.1051 is removed. 

■ 5. Effective September 8, 2021, add 

part 111 to subchapter G to read as 

follows: 

PART 111—PILOT RECORDS 

DATABASE 

Subpart A—General 

Sec. 

111.1 Applicability. 

111.5 Compliance date. 

111.10 Definitions. 

111.15 Application for database access. 

111.20 Database access. 

111.25 Denial of access. 

111.30 Prohibited access and use. 

111.35 Fraud and falsification. 

111.40 Record Retention. 

Subpart B—Access to and Evaluation of 

Records 

111.100 Applicability. 

111.105 Evaluation of pilot records. 

111.110 Motor vehicle driving record 

request. 

111.115 Good faith exception. 

111.120 Pilot consent and right of review. 

111.135 FAA records. 

Subpart C—Reporting of Records 

111.200 Applicability. 

111.205 Reporting requirements. 

111.210 Format for reporting information. 

111.215 Method of reporting. 

111.220 Drug and alcohol testing records. 

111.225 Training, qualification, and 

proficiency records. 

111.230 Final disciplinary action records. 

111.235 Final separation from employment 

records. 

111.240 Verification of motor vehicle 

driving record search and evaluation. 

111.245 Special rules for protected records. 

111.250 Correction of reported information 

and dispute resolution. 

111.255 Reporting historical records to 

PRD. 

Subpart D—Pilot Access and 

Responsibilities 

111.300 Applicability. 

111.305 Application for database access. 

111.310 Written consent. 

111.315 Pilot right of review. 

111.320 Reporting errors and requesting 

corrections. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40101, 

40113, 44701, 44703, 44711, 46105, 46301. 

Subpart A—General 

§ 111.1 Applicability. 

(a) This part prescribes rules 

governing the use of the Pilot Records 

Database (PRD). 

(b) Except as provided in subsection 

(c) of this section, this part applies to: 

(1) Each operator that holds an air 

carrier or operating certificate issued in 

accordance with part 119 of this chapter 

and is authorized to conduct operations 

under part 121, 125, or 135 of this 

chapter. 

(2) Each operator that holds 

management specifications for a 

fractional ownership program issued in 

accordance with subpart K of part 91 of 

this chapter. 

(3) Each operator that holds a letter of 

authorization issued in accordance with 

§ 91.147 of this chapter. 

(4) Each operator that operates two or 

more aircraft described in paragraph 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31061 

(b)(4)(i) or (ii) of this section, in 

furtherance of or incidental to a 

business, solely pursuant to the general 

operating and flight rules in part 91 of 

this chapter, or that operates aircraft 

pursuant to a Letter of Deviation 

Authority issued under § 125.3 of this 

chapter. 

(i) Standard airworthiness airplanes 

that require a type rating under 

§ 61.31(a) of this chapter. 

(ii) Turbine-powered rotorcraft. 

(5) Each entity that conducts public 

aircraft operations as defined in 49 

U.S.C. 40102(a)(41) on a flight that 

meets the qualification criteria for 

public aircraft status in 49 U.S.C. 40125, 

unless the entity is any branch of the 

United States Armed Forces, National 

Guard, or reserve component of the 

Armed Forces. 

(6) Each trustee in bankruptcy of any 

operator or entity described in this 

paragraph, subject to the following 

criteria: 

(i) If any operator subject to the 

requirements of this subpart files a 

petition for protection under the Federal 

bankruptcy laws, the trustee appointed 

by the bankruptcy court must comply 

with the requirements of subparts A and 

C of this part. 

(ii) The operator may delegate its 

authority to the trustee appointed by the 

bankruptcy court to access the PRD on 

its behalf in accordance with § 111.20 or 

the trustee may submit an application to 

the FAA requesting access to the PRD 

consistent with the requirements of 

§ 111.15. 

(7) Each person that submits or is 

identified on the application described 

in § 111.15 and is approved by the 

Administrator to access the PRD. 

(8) Each person who is employed as 

a pilot by, or is seeking employment as 

a pilot with, an operator subject to the 

applicability of this part. 

(c) This part does not apply to foreign 

air carriers or operators subject to part 

375 of this title. 

§ 111.5 Compliance date. 

(a) Compliance with this part is 

required by September 9, 2024, except 

as provided in §§ 111.15, 111.100, 

111.200, and 111.255. 

(b) Beginning on September 9, 2024, 

the Pilot Records Improvement Act 

(PRIA) ceases to be effective and will 

not be an available alternative to PRD 

for operators, entities, or trustees to 

which this subpart applies. 

§ 111.10 Definitions. 

For purposes of this part, the term— 

Authorized user means an individual 

who is employed by an operator, entity, 

or trustee and who is designated by a 

responsible person to access the PRD on 

behalf of the employer for purposes of 

reporting and evaluating records that 

pertain to an individual pilot applicant. 

Begin service as a pilot means the 

earliest date on which a pilot serves as 

a pilot flight crewmember or is assigned 

duties as a pilot in flight for an operator 

or entity that is subject to the 

applicability of this part. 

Final disciplinary action record 

means a last-in-time record of corrective 

or punitive action taken by an operator 

or entity who is subject to the 

applicability of this part in response to 

an event pertaining to pilot 

performance. No disciplinary action is 

considered final until the operator 

determines the action is not subject to 

any pending dispute. 

Final separation from employment 

record means a last-in-time record of 

any action ending the employment 

relationship between a pilot and an 

operator or entity who is subject to the 

applicability of this part. No separation 

from employment is considered final 

until the operator determines the 

separation is not subject to any pending 

dispute. 

Historical record means a record that 

an operator subject to the applicability 

of Subpart C of this part must generate 

and maintain in accordance with 49 

U.S.C. 44703(h)(4) and must report to 

the PRD in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 

44703(i)(15)(C)(iii). 

PRD Date of Hire means: 

(1) The earliest date on which an 

individual: 

(i) Begins any form of required 

training in preparation for the 

individual’s service as a pilot on behalf 

of an operator or entity subject to the 

applicability of this part; or 

(ii) Performs any duty as a pilot for an 

operator or entity subject to the 

applicability of this part. 

(2) This definition includes both 

direct employment and employment 

that occurs on a contract basis for any 

form of compensation. 

Proxy means a person who is 

designated by a responsible person to 

access the PRD on behalf of an operator, 

entity, or trustee subject to the 

applicability of this part for purposes of 

reporting or retrieving records. 

Record pertaining to pilot 

performance means a record of an 

activity or event directly related to a 

pilot’s responsibilities or completion of 

the core duties in conducting safe 

aircraft operations, as assigned by the 

operator employing the pilot. 

Reporting entity means an operator, 

entity, or trustee that is subject to the 

applicability of subpart C of part 111, 

including its responsible person, 

authorized users, and proxies. 

Responsible person means the 

individual identified on the application 

required by § 111.15 and who meets at 

least one of the criteria in § 111.15(e). 

Reviewing entity means operator that 

is subject to the applicability of subpart 

B of part 111, including its responsible 

person, authorized users, and proxies. 

§ 111.15 Application for database access. 

(a) Each operator, entity, or trustee to 

which this part applies must submit an 

application for access to the PRD in the 

form and manner prescribed by the 

Administrator by September 8, 2021. 

(b)(1) Each operator or entity to which 

this part applies that plans to initiate 

operations after September 8, 2021, 

must submit the application required by 

this section to the FAA at least 30 days 

before the operator or entity initiates 

aircraft operations. 

(2) Within 30 days of appointment by 

a bankruptcy court as described in 

§ 111.1(b)(6)(i), a trustee must submit 

the application required by this section 

or receive delegation of access from the 

applicable operator or entity. 

(c) The application required by this 

section must contain the following 

information: 

(1) The full name, job title, telephone 

number, and electronic mail address of 

the responsible person who is 

authorized to submit the application in 

accordance with paragraph (d) of this 

section; 

(2) The name of the operator, entity, 

or trustee; 

(3) The FAA air carrier or operating 

certificate number, as applicable; and 

(4) Any other item the Administrator 

determines is necessary to verify the 

identity of all individuals designated by 

an operator, entity, or trustee to access 

the PRD. 

(d) The application required by this 

section must be submitted by a 

responsible person who holds at least 

one of the following positions, unless 

otherwise approved by the 

Administrator: 

(1) For each operator that holds an air 

carrier or operating certificate issued in 

accordance with part 119 for operations 

under part 121, a person serving in a 

management position required by 

§ 119.65(a) of this chapter. 

(2) For each operator that holds an 

operating certificate issued in 

accordance with part 119 for operations 

under part 125, a person serving in a 

management position required by 

§ 125.25(a) of this chapter. 

(3) For each operator that holds an 

operating certificate issued in 

accordance with part 119 for operations 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
31062 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

under part 135 using more than one 

pilot in its operations, a person serving 

in a management position required by 

§ 119.69(a) of this chapter. 

(4) For each operator that holds an 

operating certificate issued in 

accordance with part 119 for operations 

under part 135 authorized to use only 

one pilot in its operations, the pilot 

named in that certificate holder’s 

operation specifications. 

(5) For each operator that holds a 

letter of authorization issued in 

accordance with § 91.147 of this 

chapter, an individual designated as the 

responsible person on the operator’s 

letter of authorization. 

(6) For each operator that holds 

management specifications for a 

fractional ownership program issued in 

accordance with subpart K of part 91 of 

this chapter, an authorized individual 

designated by the fractional ownership 

program manager, as defined in 

§ 91.1001(b) of this chapter, who is 

employed by the fractional ownership 

program and whose identity the 

Administrator has verified. 

(7) For any other operator or entity 

subject to the applicability of this part, 

or any trustee appointed in a 

bankruptcy proceeding, an individual 

authorized to sign and submit the 

application required by this section who 

is employed by the operator and whose 

identity the Administrator has verified. 

(e) Each operator, entity, or trustee 

must submit to the FAA— 

(1) An amended application for 

database access no later than 30 days 

after any change to the information 

included on the initial application for 

database access occurs, except when the 

change pertains to the identification or 

designation of the responsible person. 

(2) An amended application 

identifying another responsible person 

eligible for database access in 

accordance with this section, 

immediately when the operator, entity, 

or trustee is aware of information that 

would cause the current responsible 

person’s database access to be cancelled 

or denied. 

(f) Upon approval by the FAA of a 

request for access to the PRD, each 

person identified in paragraph (e) is 

authorized to: 

(1) Access the database for purposes 

consistent with the provisions of this 

part, on behalf of the operator, entity, or 

trustee for which the person is 

authorized, for purposes consistent with 

the provisions of this part; and 

(2) Delegate PRD access to authorized 

users and proxies in accordance with 

§ 111.20. 

§ 111.20 Database access. 

(a) Delegation. The responsible person 

may delegate PRD access to authorized 

users or proxies for purposes of 

compliance by the operator, entity, or 

trustee with the requirements of subpart 

B or C of this part. 

(b) Terms for access. No person may 

use the PRD for any purpose other than 

to inform a hiring decision concerning 

a pilot or to report information on behalf 

of the operator, entity, or trustee. 

(c) Continuing access for authorized 

users and proxies. PRD access by 

authorized users and proxies is 

contingent on the continued validity of 

the responsible person’s electronic 

access. If a responsible person’s 

electronic access is cancelled, the 

database access of authorized users and 

proxies will be cancelled unless the 

operator, entity, or trustee submits an 

amended application for database access 

and receives FAA approval of that 

application in accordance with § 111.15. 

§ 111.25 Denial of access. 

(a) The Administrator may deny PRD 

access to any person for failure to 

comply with any of the duties or 

responsibilities prescribed by this part 

or as necessary to preserve the security 

and integrity of the database, which 

includes but is not limited to— 

(1) Making a fraudulent or 

intentionally false report of information 

to the database; or 

(2) Misusing or misappropriating user 

rights or protected information in the 

database. 

(b) The Administrator may deny any 

operator or entity access to the PRD if 

the Administrator revokes or suspends 

the operating certificate or other 

authorization to operate. 

(c) Any person whose access to the 

database has been denied by the 

Administrator may submit a request for 

reconsideration of the denial in a form 

and manner the Administrator provides. 

Database access will not be permitted 

pending reconsideration. 

§ 111.30 Prohibited access and use. 

(a) No person may access the database 

for any purpose other than the purposes 

provided by this part. 

(b) No person may share, distribute, 

publish, or otherwise release any record 

accessed in the database to any person 

or individual not directly involved in 

the hiring decision, unless specifically 

authorized by law or unless the person 

sharing or consenting to share the 

record is the subject of the record. 

(c) Each person that accesses the PRD 

to retrieve a pilot’s records must protect 

the confidentiality of those records and 

the privacy of the pilot as to those 

records. 

§ 111.35 Fraud and falsification. 

No person may make, or cause to be 

made, a fraudulent or intentionally false 

statement, or conceal or cause to be 

concealed a material fact, in— 

(a) Any application or any 

amendment to an application submitted 

in accordance with the requirements of 

this part; 

(b) Any other record reported to the 

PRD in accordance with the 

requirements of this part; or 

(c) Any record or report that is kept, 

made, or used to show compliance with 

this part. 

§ 111.40 Record retention. 

(a) The Administrator will maintain a 

pilot’s records in the PRD for the life of 

the pilot. Any person requesting 

removal of the records pertaining to an 

individual pilot must notify the FAA of 

the pilot’s death in a form and manner 

acceptable to the Administrator. 

(b) The notification must include the 

following: 

(1) The full name of the pilot as it 

appears on his or her pilot certificate; 

(2) The pilot’s FAA-issued certificate 

number; and 

(3) A certified copy of the individual’s 

certificate of death. 

Subpart B—Access to and Evaluation 

of Records 

§ 111.100 Applicability. 

(a) This subpart prescribes 

requirements for the following 

reviewing entities: 

(1) Each operator that holds an air 

carrier or operating certificate issued by 

the Administrator in accordance with 

part 119 of this chapter and is 

authorized to conduct operations under 

part 121, part 125, or part 135 of this 

chapter. 

(2) Each operator that holds 

management specifications to operate in 

accordance with subpart K of part 91 of 

this chapter. 

(3) Each operator that holds a letter of 

authorization to conduct air tour 

operations in accordance with § 91.147 

of this chapter. 

(b) Compliance with this subpart is 

required beginning June 10, 2022, 

except compliance with § 111.105(b)(1) 

is required beginning December 7, 2021. 

(c) If an operator described in 

§ 111.1(b)(4) or an entity described in 

§ 111.1(b)(5) accesses the PRD to review 

records in accordance with this subpart, 

the operator or entity must comply with 

§ 111.120. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31063 

§ 111.105 Evaluation of pilot records. 

(a) Except as provided in § 111.115, 

no reviewing entity may permit an 

individual to begin service as a pilot 

until the reviewing entity has evaluated 

all relevant information in the PRD. 

(b) Evaluation must include review of 

all of the following information 

pertaining to that pilot: 

(1) All FAA records in the PRD as 

described in § 111.135. 

(2) All records in the PRD submitted 

by a reporting entity. 

(3) All motor vehicle driving records 

obtained in accordance with § 111.110. 

(4) The employment history the pilot 

provides to the PRD in accordance with 

subpart D of this part. If, upon review 

of the employment history provided by 

the pilot and the records described in 

(b)(2) of this section, a reviewing entity 

determines that records might be 

available that the pilot’s previous 

employer has not yet uploaded in the 

database, the reviewing entity must 

submit a request to the pilot’s previous 

employer(s) through the PRD to report 

any applicable records in accordance 

with the process in § 111.215(b). 

§ 111.110 Motor vehicle driving record 

request. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(d) of this section, no reviewing entity 

may permit an individual to begin 

service as a pilot unless the reviewing 

entity has requested and evaluated all 

relevant information identified through 

a National Driver Register (NDR) search 

set forth in chapter 303 of Title 49 

concerning the individual’s motor 

vehicle driving history in accordance 

with the following: 

(1) The reviewing entity must obtain 

the written consent of that individual, 

in accordance with § 111.310, before 

requesting an NDR search for the 

individual’s State motor vehicle driving 

records; 

(2) After obtaining the written consent 

of the individual, the reviewing entity 

must submit a request to the NDR to 

determine whether any State maintains 

relevant records pertaining to that 

individual; and 

(3) When the NDR search result is 

returned, if the NDR search result 

indicates that records exist concerning 

that individual, the reviewing entity 

must submit a request for the relevant 

motor vehicle driving records to each 

chief driver licensing official of each 

State identified in the NDR search 

result. 

(b) Each reviewing entity must 

document in the PRD that the reviewing 

entity complied with this section, as 

prescribed at § 111.240. 

(c) Upon the Administrator’s request, 

each reviewing entity must provide 

documentation showing the reviewing 

entity has conducted the search 

required by paragraph (a). The 

reviewing entity must retain this 

documentation for five years. 

(d) This section does not apply to 

operators described in § 111.100(a)(2) 

through (3). 

§ 111.115 Good faith exception. 

Reviewing entities may allow an 

individual to begin service as a pilot 

without first evaluating records in 

accordance with § 111.105 only if the 

reviewing entity— 

(a) Made a documented, good faith 

attempt to access all necessary 

information maintained in the PRD that 

the reviewing entity is required to 

evaluate; and 

(b) Received notice from the 

Administrator that information is 

missing from the PRD pertaining to the 

individual’s employment history as a 

pilot. 

§ 111.120 Pilot consent and right of 

review. 

(a) No reviewing entity may retrieve 

records in the PRD pertaining to any 

pilot prior to receiving that pilot’s 

written consent authorizing the release 

of that pilot’s information maintained in 

the PRD. 

(b) The consent required in paragraph 

(a) of this section must be documented 

by that pilot in accordance with 

§ 111.310. 

(c) Any pilot who submits written 

consent to a reviewing entity in 

accordance with § 111.310(c) may 

request a copy of any State motor 

vehicle driving records the reviewing 

entity obtained regarding that pilot in 

accordance with § 111.110. The 

reviewing entity must provide to the 

pilot all copies of State motor vehicle 

driving records obtained within 30 days 

of receiving the request from that pilot. 

§ 111.135 FAA records. 

No reviewing entity may permit an 

individual to begin service as a pilot 

unless a responsible person or 

authorized user has accessed and 

evaluated all relevant FAA records for 

that individual in the PRD, including: 

(a) Records related to current pilot 

and medical certificate information, 

including associated type ratings and 

information on any limitations to those 

certificates and ratings. 

(b) Records maintained by the 

Administrator concerning any failed 

attempt of an individual to pass a 

practical test required to obtain a 

certificate or type rating under part 61 

of this chapter. 

(c) Records related to enforcement 

actions resulting in a finding by the 

Administrator, which was not 

subsequently overturned, of a violation 

of title 49 of the United States Code or 

a regulation prescribed or order issued 

under that title. 

(d) Records related to an individual 

acting as pilot in command or second in 

command during an aviation accident or 

incident. 

(e) Records related to an individual’s 

pre-employment drug and alcohol 

testing history and other U.S. 

Department of Transportation drug and 

alcohol testing including: 

(1) Verified positive drug test results; 

(2) Alcohol misuse violations, 

including confirmed alcohol results of 

0.04 or greater; and 

(3) Refusals to submit to drug or 

alcohol testing. 

Subpart C—Reporting of Records by 

Air Carriers and Operators 

§ 111.200 Applicability. 

(a) This subpart prescribes the 

requirements for reporting records to the 

PRD about individuals employed as 

pilots and applies to the following 

reporting entities: 

(1) Each operator that holds an air 

carrier or operating certificate issued in 

accordance with part 119 of this chapter 

and is authorized to conduct operations 

under part 121, 125, or 135 of this 

chapter. 

(2) Each operator that holds 

management specifications to operate in 

accordance with subpart K of part 91 of 

this chapter. 

(3) Each operator that holds a letter of 

authorization to conduct air tour 

operations in accordance with § 91.147 

of this chapter. 

(4) Each operator described in 

§ 111.1(b)(4). 

(5) Each entity that conducts public 

aircraft operations as described in 

§ 111.1(b)(5). 

(6) The trustee in bankruptcy of any 

operator described in this section. 

(b) Compliance dates for this subpart 

are as follows: 

(1) For a reporting entity already 

conducting operations on June 10, 2022, 

compliance with this subpart is required 

beginning June 10, 2022. 

(2) For a reporting entity that initiates 

operations after June 10, 2022, 

compliance with this subpart is required 

within 30 days of the reporting entity 

commencing aircraft operations. 

(3) Specific compliance dates for 

historical records are set forth in 

§ 111.255. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
31064 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 111.205 Reporting requirements. 

(a) Each reporting entity must provide 

the information required in paragraph 

(b) of this section for any individual 

employed as a pilot beginning on the 

PRD date of hire for that individual. 

(b) Each reporting entity must report 

the following records to the PRD for 

each individual employed as a pilot: 

(1) All records described in 

§§ 111.220 through 111.240 generated 

on or after June 10, 2022; 

(2) All historical records required by 

§ 111.255 of this part, as applicable; and 

(3) The PRD date of hire. 

(c) No person may enter or cause to 

be entered into the PRD any information 

described in § 111.245. 

§ 111.210 Format for reporting 

information. 

Each reporting entity must report to 

the PRD all records required by this 

subpart for each individual the 

reporting entity employed as a pilot in 

a form and manner prescribed by the 

Administrator. 

§ 111.215 Method of reporting. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(b) of this section of this part, all records 

created on or after June 10, 2022, and 

required to be reported to the PRD 

under this subpart must be reported 

within 30 days of the effective date of 

the record, or within 30 days of the 

record becoming final when the record 

is a disciplinary action record or a 

separation from employment record. 

(b) Each operator conducting an 

operation described in § 111.1(b)(4), 

entity conducting a public aircraft 

operation, operator conducting an air 

tour operation under § 91.147, or a 

trustee for such an operator or entity 

must either comply with paragraph (a) 

of this section or report and retain pilot 

records in accordance with all 

requirements of this paragraph. 

(1) Operators, entities, or trustees 

listed in this paragraph (b) must report 

a record described in § 111.225, 

§ 111.230, or § 111.235 to the PRD upon 

receipt of a request from a reviewing 

entity within 14 days, unless the record 

memorializes one or more of the 

following: 

(i) A disciplinary action that resulted 

in permanent or temporary removal of 

the pilot from aircraft operations as 

described in § 111.230, which must be 

reported in accordance with paragraph 

(a) of this section. 

(ii) A separation from employment 

action resulting from a termination as 

described in § 111.235, which must be 

reported in accordance with paragraph 

(a) of this section. 

(2) If no records are available at time 

of request from a reviewing entity, the 

operator, entity, or trustee must provide 

written confirmation within 14 of the 

days of the request to the PRD that no 

records are available. 

(3) An operator, entity, or trustee must 

retain a record eligible to be reported 

upon request under paragraph (b)(1) of 

this section for five years from the date 

of creation, unless the operator or entity 

already reported that record to the PRD. 

(c) For records created before June 10, 

2022, and maintained in accordance 

with PRIA, an operator, entity, or trustee 

listed in paragraph (b) of this section 

must continue to maintain all records 

that would have been provided in 

response to a PRIA request for five years 

from the date of creation of the record, 

and must report that record upon 

request from a reviewing entity in 

accordance with paragraph (b). 

§ 111.220 Drug and alcohol testing 

records. 

(a) Each operator or trustee required 

to comply with part 120 of this chapter 

and subject to the applicability of this 

subpart must report to the PRD the 

following records for each individual 

whom the reporting entity has 

employed as a pilot: 

(1) Records concerning drug testing, 

including— 

(i) Any drug test result verified 

positive by a Medical Review Officer, 

that the Medical Review Officer and 

employer must retain in accordance 

with § 120.111(a)(1) of this chapter and 

49 CFR 40.333(a)(1)(ii); 

(ii) Any refusal to submit to drug 

testing or records indicating substituted 

or adulterated drug test results, which 

the employer must retain in accordance 

with 49 CFR 40.333(a)(1)(iii); 

(iii) All return-to-duty drug test 

results verified by a Medical Review 

Officer, that the employer must retain in 

accordance with 49 CFR 40.333(a)(1)(ii) 

or (iii) or (a)(4); 

(iv) All follow-up drug test results 

verified by a Medical Review Officer, 

which the employer must retain in 

accordance with 49 CFR 40.333(a)(1)(v). 

(2) Records concerning alcohol 

misuse, including— 

(i) A test result with a confirmed 

breath alcohol concentration of 0.04 or 

greater, which the employer must retain 

in accordance with § 120.219(a)(2)(i)(B) 

of this chapter; 

(ii) Any record pertaining to an 

occurrence of on-duty alcohol use, preduty alcohol use, or alcohol use 

following an accident, which the 

employer must retain in accordance 

with § 120.219(a)(2)(i)(D) of this chapter; 

(iii) Any refusal to submit to alcohol 

testing, that the employer must retain in 

accordance with § 120.219(a)(2)(i)(B) of 

this chapter and 49 CFR 

40.333(a)(1)(iii); 

(iv) All return-to-duty alcohol test 

results, that the employer must retain in 

accordance with 49 CFR 40.333(a)(1)(i) 

or (iii) or (a)(4); 

(v) All follow-up alcohol test results, 

which the employer must retain in 

accordance with 49 CFR 40.333(a)(1)(v). 

(b) Each record reported to the PRD in 

accordance with paragraph (a) of this 

section must include the following: 

(1) In the case of a drug or alcohol test 

result: 

(i) The type of test administered; 

(ii) The date the test was 

administered; and 

(iii) The result of the test. 

(2) In the case of alcohol misuse, as 

described in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this 

section: 

(i) The type of each alcohol misuse 

violation; 

(ii) The date of each alcohol misuse 

violation. 

(c) In addition to the requirements of 

§§ 120.113(d)(3) and 120.221(c), 

operators required to report in 

accordance with this section must 

report records within 30 days of the 

following occurrences, as applicable: 

(1) The date of verification of the drug 

test result; 

(2) The date of the alcohol test result; 

(3) The date of the refusal to submit 

to testing; or 

(4) The date of the alcohol misuse 

occurrence. 

§ 111.225 Training, qualification, and 

proficiency records. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(b) of this section, each reporting entity 

must provide to the PRD the following 

records for each individual whom the 

reporting entity has employed as a pilot: 

(1) Records establishing an 

individual’s compliance with FAArequired training, qualifications, and 

proficiency events, which the reporting 

entity maintains pursuant to 

§ 91.1027(a)(3), § 121.683, § 125.401 or 

§ 135.63(a)(4) of this chapter, as 

applicable, including comments and 

evaluations made by a check pilot or 

evaluator; and 

(2) Other records the reporting entity 

maintains documenting an individual’s 

compliance with FAA or employerrequired training, checking, testing, 

proficiency, or other events related to 

pilot performance concerning the 

training, qualifications, proficiency, and 

professional competence of the 

individual, including any comments 

and evaluations made by a check pilot 

or evaluator. 

(b) No person may report any of the 

following information for inclusion in 

the PRD: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31065 

(1) Records related to flight time, duty 

time, and rest time. 

(2) Records demonstrating compliance 

with physical examination requirements 

or any other protected medical records. 

(3) Records documenting recent flight 

experience. 

(4) Records identified in § 111.245. 

(c) Each record reported to the PRD in 

accordance with paragraph (a) of this 

section must include: 

(1) Date of the event; 

(2) Aircraft type, if applicable; 

(3) Duty position of the pilot, if 

applicable; 

(4) Training program approval part 

and subpart of this chapter, as 

applicable; 

(5) Crewmember training and 

qualification curriculum and category of 

training as reflected in either a FAAapproved or employer-mandated 

training program; 

(6) Result of the event (satisfactory or 

unsatisfactory); 

(7) Comments of check pilot or 

evaluator, if applicable under part 91, 

121, 125, or 135 of this chapter. For 

unsatisfactory events, the tasks or 

maneuvers considered unsatisfactory 

must be included. 

(d) An operator, entity, or trustee that 

complies with § 111.215(b) must report 

records in accordance with paragraphs 

(a) through (c) of this section upon 

request, if that operator or entity 

possesses those records. 

(e)(1) Each reporting entity must 

provide a record within 30 days of 

creating that record, in accordance with 

§ 111.215(a), unless the reporting entity 

is an operator, entity, or trustee 

complying with § 111.215(b). 

(2) An operator, entity, or trustee 

complying with § 111.215(b) must 

provide records described in this 

section or a statement that it does not 

have any records described in this 

section within 14 days of receiving a 

request from a reviewing entity. 

§ 111.230 Final disciplinary action records. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(b) of this section, each reporting entity 

must provide to the PRD any final 

disciplinary action record pertaining to 

pilot performance with respect to an 

individual whom the reporting entity 

has employed as a pilot. 

(b) No person may report to the PRD 

any record of disciplinary action that 

was subsequently overturned because 

the event prompting the action did not 

occur or the pilot was not at fault as 

determined by— 

(1) A documented agreement between 

the employer and the pilot; or 

(2) The official and final decision or 

order of any panel or person with 

authority to review employment 

disputes, or by any court of law. 

(c) If a reporting entity receives notice 

that any disciplinary action record 

reported to the PRD under paragraph (a) 

of this section was overturned in 

accordance with paragraph (b), that 

entity must correct the pilot’s PRD 

record in accordance with § 111.250 

within 10 days. 

(d) Each final disciplinary action 

record that must be reported to the PRD 

under paragraph (a) of this section must 

include the following information: 

(1) The type of disciplinary action 

taken by the employer, including 

written warning, suspension, or 

termination; 

(2) Whether the disciplinary action 

resulted in permanent or temporary 

removal of the pilot from aircraft 

operations; 

(3) The date the disciplinary action 

occurred; and 

(4) Whether there are additional 

documents available that are relevant to 

the record. 

(e) An operator, entity, or trustee 

complying with § 111.215(b) must 

report records described in paragraphs 

(a) through (d) of this section upon 

request, unless the disciplinary action 

resulted in permanent or temporary 

removal of the pilot from aircraft 

operations. If the disciplinary action 

resulted in permanent or temporary 

removal of the pilot from aircraft 

operations, the operator, entity, or 

trustee must report the record in 

accordance with § 111.215(a). 

(f)(1) A reporting entity must provide 

records of final disciplinary actions no 

later than 30 days after the action is 

final, unless the reporting entity is an 

operator, entity or trustee complying 

with § 111.215(b). 

(2) An operator, entity or trustee 

complying with § 111.215(b) must 

report records described in this section, 

or state that it does not have any 

applicable records, within 14 days of 

receiving a request from a reviewing 

entity. 

(g) Each reporting entity must: 

(1) Retain documents relevant to the 

record reported under paragraph (a) of 

this section for five years, if available; 

and 

(2) Provide such documents upon 

request within 14 days to: 

(i) A reviewing entity; or 

(ii) The pilot that is the subject of the 

record. 

§ 111.235 Final separation from 

employment records. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(b) of this section, each reporting entity 

must provide to the PRD the following 

records for each individual whom the 

reporting entity has employed as a pilot: 

(1) Records concerning separation 

from employment kept pursuant to 

§ 91.1027(a)(3), § 121.683, § 125.401 or 

§ 135.63(a)(4) of this chapter; and 

(2) Records pertaining to pilot 

performance kept concerning separation 

from employment for each pilot that it 

employs. 

(b) No person may report to the PRD 

any record regarding separation from 

employment that was subsequently 

overturned because the event prompting 

the action did not occur or the pilot was 

not at fault as determined by— 

(1) A documented agreement between 

the employer and the pilot; or 

(2) The official and final decision or 

order of any panel or individual given 

authority to review employment 

disputes, or by any court of law. 

(c) If a reporting entity receives notice 

that any separation from employment 

record reported to the PRD under 

paragraph (a) of this section was 

overturned in accordance with 

paragraph (b) of this section, that entity 

must correct the pilot’s PRD record in 

accordance with § 111.250 within 10 

days. 

(d) Each separation from employment 

action record that must be reported to 

the PRD in accordance with paragraph 

(a) of this section must include a 

statement of the purpose for the 

separation from employment action, 

including: 

(1) Whether the separation resulted 

from a termination as a result of pilot 

performance, including professional 

disqualification; 

(2) Whether the separation is based on 

another reason, including but not 

limited to physical (medical) 

disqualification, employer-initiated 

separation not related to pilot 

performance, or any resignation, 

including retirement; 

(3) The date of separation from 

employment; and 

(4) Whether there are additional 

documents available that are relevant to 

the record. 

(e) An operator, entity, or trustee 

complying with § 111.215(b) must 

report the records described in 

paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section 

upon request, unless the separation 

from employment action resulted from a 

termination. If the separation from 

employment record resulted from a 

termination, the operator, entity, or 

trustee must report the record in 

accordance with § 111.215(a). 

(f)(1) A reporting entity must provide 

any records of separation from 

employment actions no later than 30 

days after the date of separation from 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
31066 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

employment is final, unless the 

reporting entity is an operator, entity, or 

trustee complying with § 111.215(b). 

(2) An operator, entity, or trustee 

complying with § 111.215(b) must 

report records described in this section 

or state that it does not have any 

applicable records within 14 days of 

receiving a request from a reviewing 

entity. 

(g) Each reporting entity must: 

(1) Retain documents relevant to the 

record reported under paragraph (a) of 

this section for five years, if available; 

and 

(2) Provide such documents upon 

request within 14 days to: 

(i) A reviewing entity; or 

(ii) The pilot that is the subject of the 

record. 

§ 111.240 Verification of motor vehicle 

driving record search and evaluation. 

(a) Each operator subject to the 

requirements of § 111.110 of this part 

must document in the PRD within 45 

days of the pilot’s PRD date of hire that 

the operator met the requirements of 

§ 111.110. 

(b) No operator may report any 

substantive information from State 

motor vehicle driving records pertaining 

to any individual obtained in 

accordance with § 111.110 for inclusion 

in the PRD. 

§ 111.245 Special rules for protected 

records. 

No person may report any pilot record 

for inclusion in the PRD that was 

reported by any individual as part of 

any approved Voluntary Safety 

Reporting Program for which the FAA 

has designated reported information as 

protected in accordance with part 193 of 

this chapter. 

§ 111.250 Correction of reported 

information and dispute resolution. 

(a) A reporting entity that discovers or 

is informed of a perceived error or 

inaccuracy in information previously 

reported to the PRD must correct that 

record in the PRD within 10 days of 

identification, or initiate dispute 

resolution in accordance with paragraph 

(b) of this section. 

(b) Each reporting entity must— 

(1) Initiate investigation of any 

dispute within 30 days of determining 

that it does not agree that the record 

identified is inaccurate. 

(2) Provide final disposition within a 

reasonable amount of time to any 

request for dispute resolution made by 

an individual about PRD records. 

(3) Document in the PRD the final 

disposition of any dispute made by a 

pilot in accordance with this paragraph 

(b) and § 111.320. 

§ 111.255 Reporting historical records to 

PRD. 

(a) Each operator that holds an air 

carrier certificate issued in accordance 

with part 119 of this chapter and is 

authorized to conduct operations under 

part 121 or part 135 of this chapter must 

report to the PRD all historical records 

kept in accordance with PRIA dating 

from August 1, 2005 until June 10, 2022, 

in a form and manner prescribed by the 

Administrator. 

(b) Each operator that holds an 

operating certificate issued in 

accordance with part 119 of this chapter 

and is authorized to conduct operations 

under part 121, 125, or 135 of this 

chapter or that holds management 

specifications to operate in accordance 

with subpart K of part 91 of this chapter 

must report to the PRD all historical 

records kept in accordance with PRIA 

dating from August 1, 2010, until June 

10, 2022, in a form and manner 

prescribed by the Administrator. 

(c) If an operator required to report 

historical records to the PRD in 

accordance with this section is 

appointed a trustee in a bankruptcy 

proceeding, the trustee must report the 

operator’s historical records. 

(d) Compliance for reporting 

historical records that date on or after 

January 1, 2015, is required by June 12, 

2023. Compliance for records that date 

before January 1, 2015, is required by 

September 9, 2024. 

(e) An operator or trustee subject to 

the applicability of this subpart must 

maintain all historical records reported 

to the PRD in accordance with 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section for 

at least five years after reporting those 

records. 

(f) An operator or trustee is not 

required to report historical records for 

any individual who is 99 years of age or 

older on June 10, 2022. 

(g)(1)The Administrator may 

authorize a request for deviation from 

paragraph (d) of this section based on a 

determination that a delay in 

compliance, due to circumstance 

beyond control of the operatoror trustee 

reporting historical records, would not 

adversely affect safety. 

(2) A request for deviation from 

paragraph (d) of this section must 

include the following information: 

(i) The name of the operator or 

trustee; 

(ii) The name of the responsible 

person; 

(iii) The name of the pilot(s) who are 

the subject of the record; 

(iv) Historical record type for which 

deviation is requested; 

(v) Date range of records; and 

(vi) Justification for the request for 

deviation, including a description of the 

circumstance referenced in (g)(1). 

(3) Operators and trustees granted 

deviation in accordance with this 

paragraph must continue to retain 

historical records and respond to 

requests for such records for the term of 

that deviation in a form and manner 

prescribed by the Administrator. 

(4) The Administrator may, at any 

time, terminate a grant of deviation 

issued under this paragraph. 

Subpart D—Pilot Access and 

Responsibilities 

§ 111.300 Applicability. 

This subpart applies to each 

individual who is employed as a pilot 

by, or is seeking employment as a pilot 

with, an operator or entity subject to the 

applicability of this part, as set forth in 

§ 111.1. 

§ 111.305 Application for database access. 

(a) A pilot must request electronic 

access to the PRD by submitting an 

application in a form and manner 

acceptable to the Administrator. Except 

as provided in § 111.315(c), electronic 

access to the PRD is required when— 

(1) The pilot seeks to review and 

obtain a copy of that pilot’s own 

comprehensive PRD record; 

(2) The pilot gives consent to a 

particular operator to access that pilot’s 

comprehensive PRD record; or 

(3) The pilot exercises any other 

privileges provided by this part. 

(b) The application required in 

paragraph (a) of this section must 

include, at a minimum, the following 

information: 

(1) The pilot’s full name as it appears 

on his or her pilot certificate. 

(2) The pilot’s FAA-issued certificate 

number. 

(3) A current mailing address and 

telephone number. 

(4) An electronic mail address. 

(5) Any additional information that 

the Administrator might request to 

verify the identity of the pilot requesting 

access to the PRD. 

(c) The application required in 

paragraph (a) of this section must be 

submitted at least 7 days before the pilot 

seeks to access the PRD. 

§ 111.310 Written consent. 

(a) Before any operator may access a 

pilot’s records in the PRD, that pilot 

must apply for access to the PRD in 

accordance with § 111.305 and provide 

written consent to the FAA for release 

of that pilot’s records to the operator, in 

a form and manner acceptable to the 

Administrator. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31067 

(b) Provision of consent must include 

an affirmation that the employment 

history of the pilot for five years 

preceding the date of consent is accurate 

and complete. If the pilot finds the 

employment history is not complete, the 

pilot must update the employment 

history to list all past employers. 

(c) Before an operator submits a 

request to the NDR for an individual’s 

motor vehicle driving record for 

purposes of compliance with § 111.110, 

the individual must provide written 

consent specific to the NDR search. 

§ 111.315 Pilot right of review. 

(a) Once a pilot has received 

electronic access in accordance with 

§ 111.305, the pilot may access the PRD 

to review all records pertaining to that 

pilot. 

(b) A pilot who submits written 

consent to a reviewing entity in 

accordance with § 111.310(c) may 

request a copy of any State motor 

vehicle driving records obtained by the 

reviewing entity in accordance with 

§ 111.110. 

(c) A pilot may review all records 

contained in the PRD pertaining to that 

pilot, without accessing the PRD and 

without obtaining electronic access 

issued in accordance with § 111.305, 

upon submission of a form provided by 

the Administrator to confirm the pilot’s 

identity. 

§ 111.320 Reporting errors and requesting 

corrections. 

A pilot who identifies an error or 

inaccuracy in that pilot’s PRD records 

must report the error or inaccuracy to 

the PRD in a form and manner 

acceptable to the Administrator. 

§ 111.10 [Amended] 

■ 6. Effective September 10, 2029, 

amend § 111.10 by removing the 

definition of ‘‘historical record’’. 

§ 111.15 [Amended] 

■ 7. Effective October 8, 2021, amend 

§ 111.15 by removing paragraph (a) and 

redesignating paragraphs (b) through (f) 

as paragraphs (a) through (e). 

§ 111.100 [Amended] 

■ 8. Effective June 10, 2022, amend 

§ 111.100 by removing paragraph (b) 

and redesignating paragraph (c) as 

paragraph (b). 

■ 9. Effective June 10, 2022, amend 

§ 111.200 by revising paragraph (b) to 

read as follows: 

§ 111.200 Applicability. 

* * * * * 

(b) Compliance is required for this 

subpart as follows: 

(1) Compliance with this subpart is 

required within 30 days of the reporting 

entity commencing aircraft operations. 

(2) Specific compliance dates for 

records described in § 111.205(b)(2) are 

set forth in § 111.255. 

* * * * * 

■ 10. Effective September 10, 2029, 

further amend § 111.200 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 111.200 Applicability. 

* * * * * 

(b) Compliance with this subpart is 

required beginning within 30 days of 

the reporting entity commencing aircraft 

operations. 

* * * * * 

§ 111.205 [Amended] 

■ 11. Effective September 9, 2024, 

amend § 111.205 by removing paragraph 

(b)(2) and redesignating paragraph (b)(3) 

as (b)(2). 

■ 12. Effective September 9, 2024, 

amend § 111.215 by revising paragraph 

(a) to read as follows: 

§ 111.215 Method of Reporting. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(b) of this section, all records required 

to be reported to the PRD under this 

subpart must be reported within 30 days 

of the effective date of the record, or 

within 30 days of the record becoming 

final when the record is a disciplinary 

action record or a separation from 

employment record. 

* * * * * 

§ 111.215 [Amended] 

■ 13. Effective September 8, 2027, 

further amend § 111.215 by removing 

paragraph (c). 

§ 111.255 [Removed] 

■ 14. Effective September 10, 2029, 

§ 111.255 is removed. 

Issued in Washington, DC, under the 

authority of 49 U.S.C. 106(f), U.S.C. 106(f), 

106(g) 44701(a), 44703, 44711, 46105, and 

46301 on or about May 25, 2021. 

Steve Dickson, 

Administrator, Federal Aviation 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2021–11424 Filed 6–9–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2