65FR37835 Advanced Qualification Program
robop...@us.govnews.org
Posting-number: Volume 65, Issue 117, Page 37835
[Federal Register: June 16, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 117)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 37835-37839]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16jn00-29]
[[Page 37835]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of Transportation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Aviation Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14 CFR Parts 61, et al.
Advanced Qualification Program; Proposed Rule
[[Page 37836]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 61, 63, 65, 108, 121, and 135
[Docket No. FAA-2000-7497; Notice No. 00-06]
RIN 2120-AH01
Advanced Qualification Program
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to establish a new termination date for
Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 58 (55 FR 40275; October
2, 1990), which provides for the approval of an alternate method (known
as ``Advanced Qualification Program'' or ``AQP'') for qualifying,
training and certifying, and otherwise ensuring the competency of
crewmembers, aircraft dispatchers, other operations personnel,
instructors, and evaluators who are required to be trained or qualified
under parts 121 and 135 of the FAR. This proposed extension is
necessary to establish a new termination date for SFAR 58 to allow time
for the FAA to complete the rulemaking process that will incorporate
SFAR 58 into 14 CFR part 121. The current termination date for SFAR 58
is October 2, 2000.
DATES: Send your comments on or before July 17, 2000.
ADDRESSES: Address your comments to the Docket Management System, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-
2000-7497 at the beginning of your comments, and you should submit two
copies of your comments. If you wish to receive confirmation that FAA
received your comments, include a self-addressed, stamped postcard.
You may also submit comments through the Internet to http://
dms.dot.gov. You may review the public docket containing comments to
these proposed regulations in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
Dockets Office is on the plaza level of the Nassif Building at the
Department of Transportation at the above address. Also, you may review
public dockets on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas M. Longridge, Advanced
Qualification Program Branch, AFS-230, Air Transportation Division,
Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box
20027, Dulles International Airport, Washington, DC 20041-2027;
telephone (703) 661-0260.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed action by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Comments relating to the environmental, energy,
federalism, or economic impact that might result from adopting the
proposals in this document also are invited. Substantive comments
should be accompanied by cost estimates. Comments must identify the
regulatory docket or notice number and be submitted in duplicate to the
DOT Rules Docket address specified above.
All comments received, as well as a report summarizing each
substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed
rulemaking, will be filed in the docket. The docket is available for
public inspection before and after the comment closing date.
All comments received on or before the closing date will be
considered by the Administrator before taking action on this proposed
rulemaking. Comments filed late will be considered as far as possible
without incurring expense or delay. The proposals in this document may
be changed in light of the comments received.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this document must include a pre-addressed,
stamped postcard with those comments on which the following statement
is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2000-7497.'' The postcard will be
date stamped and mailed to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded using a modem
and suitable communications software from the FAA regulations section
of the FedWorld electronic bulletin board service (telephone: (703)
321-3339) or the Government Printing Office (GPO)'s electronic bulletin
board service (telephone: (202) 512-1661).
Internet users may reach the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/
avr/arm/nprm/nprm.htm or the GPO's web page at http://
www.access.gpo.gov/nara access to recently published rulemaking
documents.
Any person may obtain a copy of this document by submitting a
request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking,
ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling
(202) 267-9680. Communications must identify the notice number or
docket number of this NPRM.
Persons interested in being placed on the mailing list for future
rulemaking documents should request from the above office a copy of
Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution
System, which describes the application procedure.
Background
In 1975, the FAA began to address two issues in part 121 pilot
training and checking. One issue was the hardware requirements needed
for total simulation. The other issue was the redesign of training
programs to deal with increasingly complex human factors problems and
to increase the safety benefits derived from the simulation. At the
urging of the air transportation industry, the FAA addressed the
hardware issue first. This effort culminated in 1980 in the development
of the Advanced Simulation Program, set forth in 14 CFR part 121,
Appendix H.
Since then, the FAA has continued to pursue approaches for the
redesign of training programs to increase the benefits of Advanced
Simulation and to deal with the increasing complexity of cockpit human
factors.
On August 27, 1987, FAA Administrator McArtor addressed the chief
pilots and certain executives of many air carriers at a meeting held in
Kansas City. One of the issues discussed at the meeting focused on
flight crewmember performance issues. This meeting led to the creation
of a Joint Government-Industry Task Force on flightcrew performance
(Joint Task Force). It was comprised of representatives from major air
carriers and air carrier associations, flightcrew member associations,
commuter air carrier and regional airline associations, and government
organizations. On September 10, 1987, the Joint Task Force met at the
Air Transport Association's headquarters to identify and discuss
flightcrew member performance issues. Working groups in three major
areas were formed: (1) Man/machine interface; (2) flightcrew member
training; and (3) operating environment. Each working group submitted a
report and recommendations to the Joint Task Force. On June 8, 1988,
the recommendations of the Joint Task Force were presented to
Administrator McArtor.
The major recommendations to the Administrator from the flightcrew
[[Page 37837]]
member training working group were the following: (1) Require 14 CFR
part 135 commuters whose airplane operations require two pilots to
comply with part 121 training, checking, qualification, and record
keeping requirements; (2) Provide for a Special Federal Aviation
Regulation (SFAR) and Advisory Circular to permit development of
innovative training programs; (3) Establish a National Air Carrier
Training Program Office that provides training program oversight at the
national level; (4) Require seconds-in-command to satisfactorily
perform their duties under the supervision of check airmen during
operating experience; (5) Require all training to be accomplished
through a certificate holder's training program; (6) Provide for
approval of training programs based on course content and training aids
rather than using specific programmed hours; (7) Require Cockpit
Resource Management (CRM) (now called Crew Resource Management)
Training. Specific recommendations were listed regarding regulatory
changes. The recommendations were separated into those changes that
should be incorporated into an SFAR and those that should be
incorporated into an accompanying Advisory Circular.
In June 1988, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
issued a Safety Recommendation (A-88-71) on the subject of CRM. The
recommendation stemmed from an NTSB accident investigation of a
Northwest Airline crash on August 16, 1987, in which 148 passengers, 6
crewmembers, and 2 people on the ground were killed.
The NTSB noted that both crewmembers had received single-crewmember
training during their last simulator training and proficiency checks.
In addition, the last CRM training they had received was 3.5 hours of
ground school (general) CRM training in 1983. As a result of its
investigation, the NTSB recommended that all part 121 carriers:
Review initial and recurrent flightcrew training programs to ensure
that they include simulator or aircraft training exercises which
involve cockpit resource management and active coordination of all
crewmember trainees and which will permit evaluation of crew
performance and adherence to those crew coordination procedures.
In response to the recommendations from the Joint Task Force and
from the NTSB, in October 1990, the FAA published SFAR 58, Advanced
Qualification Program (AQP), which addresses all of the above
recommendations. The FAA also published an Advisory Circular on AQP
that describes an acceptable methodology by which the provisions of the
SFAR may be achieved. Under SFAR 58, certificated air carriers, as well
as training centers they employ, are provided with a regulatory
alternative for training, checking, qualifying, and certifying aircrew
personnel subject to the provisions of 14 CFR parts 121 and 135.
Air carrier participation in AQP is entirely voluntary. Carriers
electing not to participate may continue to operate under the
traditional FAA provisions for training and checking. The long range
advantages to participation, however, are numerous. The regulatory
provisions of AQP offer the flexibility to tailor training and
certification activities to a carrier's particular needs and
operational circumstances. They encourage innovation in the development
of training strategies. They include wide latitude in choice of
training methods and media. They permit the use of flight training
devices for training and checking on many tasks that historically have
been accomplished in airplane simulators. They provide an approved
means for the applicant to replace FAA-mandated uniform qualification
standards with carrier-proposed alternatives tailored to specific
aircraft. They permit the applicant to establish an annual training and
checking schedule for all personnel, including pilots-in-command, and
provide a basis for extending that interval under certain
circumstances.
From an FAA perspective, the overriding advantage of AQP is quality
of training. AQP provides a systematic basis for matching technology to
training requirements and for approving training program content based
on relevance to operational performance. The FAA's goal for this
program is to improve safety through improved training.
The initial goal of the SFAR was to improve flightcrew performance
by providing alternative means of complying with certain current
provisions in the federal aviation regulations that may inhibit
innovative use of some modern technology that could facilitate the
training of flightcrew members. The SFAR has encouraged carriers to
become innovative in their approach to training. Based on the aviation
industry participation and enthusiasm in AQP, the extension of SFAR 58
is necessary until the rulemaking project that will codify AQP as a
permanent regulation is completed.
Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, directs the
FAA to assess both the costs and benefits of a regulatory change. We
are not allowed to propose or adopt a regulation unless we make a
reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation
justify the costs. Our assessment of this proposal indicates that it's
economic impact is minimal. Since its costs and benefits do not make it
a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in the Order, we have
not prepared a ``regulatory evaluation,'' which is the written cost/
benefit analysis ordinarily required for all rulemaking proposals under
the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures. We do not need to do the
latter analysis where the economic impact of a proposal is minimal.
AQP is not mandatory, consequently, those operators who choose to
participate in the program would do so only if it was in their best
interest. Enough operators have found it in their best interest that
AQP has become an important means for meeting the requirements for air
carrier training programs. AQP gives air carriers flexibility in
meeting the safety goals of the training programs in 14 CFR parts 121
and 135 without sacrificing any of the safety benefits derived from
those programs. Thus, extending AQP for another 5 years would not
impose any additional costs nor decrease the present level of safety.
Because this proposal is extending an existing, voluntary program that
has become an important means for some operators to comply with
training requirements, the FAA finds that a detailed regulatory
evaluation is not necessary.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) establishes ``as a
principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor,
consistent with the objective of the rule and of applicable statutes,
to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the
businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to
regulation.'' To achieve that principle, the Act requires agencies to
solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the
rationale for their actions. The Act covers a wide-range of small
entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and
small governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or
final rule will have a significant economic
[[Page 37838]]
impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the determination
is that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility
analysis as described in the Act.
However, if an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is
not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, section 605(b) of the 1980 act provides that
the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility
analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement
providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning
should be clear.
This rulemaking allows certain air carriers to continue
participating in a voluntary, alternative method for qualifying,
training and certifying, and otherwise ensuring competency of
crewmembers, aircraft dispatchers, and other operational personnel,
instructors, and evaluators who are required to be trained or qualified
under 14 CFR parts 121 and 135. As such, this rulemaking would not
impose any additional cost on those air carriers. Consequently, the FAA
certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small air carriers.
International Trade Impact Analysis
The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from
engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate
domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary
obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S.
standards. In addition, consistent with the Administration's belief in
the general superiority and desirability of free trade, it is the
policy of the Administration to remove or diminish to the extent
feasible, barriers to international trade, including both barriers
affecting the export of American goods and services to foreign
countries and barriers affecting the import of foreign goods and
services into the United States.
In accordance with the above statute and policy, the FAA has
assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and has determined
that it would have only a domestic impact and therefore no affect on
any trade-sensitive activity.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The FAA has determined
that this action would not have a substantial direct effect on the
States, on the relationship between the national Government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. Therefore, the FAA has determined that
this notice of proposed rulemaking would not have federalism
implications.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act),
enacted as Pub. L. 104-4 on March 22, 1995, requires each Federal
agency, to the extent permitted by law, to prepare a written assessment
of the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency
rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.
Section 204(a) of the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1534(a), requires the Federal
agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by
elected officers (or their designees) of State, local, and tribal
governments on a proposed ``significant intergovernmental mandate.'' A
``significant intergovernmental mandate'' under the Act is any
provision in a Federal agency regulation that will impose an
enforceable duty upon State, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, of $100 million (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one
year. Section 203 of the Act, 2 U.S.C. 1553, which supplements section
204(a), provides that before establishing any regulatory requirements
that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments, the
agency shall have developed a plan that, among other things, provides
for notice to potentially affected small governments, if any, and for a
meaningful and timely opportunity to provide input in the development
of regulatory proposals.
The FAA determines that this proposal does not contain a
significant intergovernmental or private sector mandate as defined by
the Act.
Environmental Analysis
FAA Order 1050.1D defines FAA actions that may be categorically
excluded from preparation of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
environmental impact statement. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D,
appendix 4, paragraph 4(j), this proposed rulemaking action qualifies
for a categorical exclusion.
Energy Impact
The energy impact of the notice has been assessed in accordance
with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) Pub. L. 94-163, as
amended (43 U.S.C. 6362) and FAA Order 1053.1. It has been determined
that the notice is not a major regulatory action under the provisions
of the EPCA.
List of Subjects
14 CFR Part 61
Air safety, Air transportation, Aviation safety, Safety.
14 CFR Part 63
Air safety, Air transportation, Airmen, Aviation safety, Safety,
Transportation.
14 CFR Part 65
Airman, Aviation safety, Air transportation, Aircraft.
14 CFR Part 108
Airplane operator security, Aviation security, Aviation safety, Air
transportation, Air carriers, Airlines, Security measures,
Transportation, Weapons.
14 CFR Part 121
Aircraft pilots, Airmen, Aviation safety, Pilots, Safety.
14 CFR Part 135
Air carriers, Air transportation, Airmen, Aviation safety, Safety,
Pilots.
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend SFAR 58 (14 CFR parts 61, 63, 65, 108,
121, and 135) of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 61 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707, 44709-
44711, 45102-45103, 45301-45303.
2. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40108, 40113, 44701-44703, 44710,
44712, 44714, 44716, 44717, 44722, 45303.
3. The authority citation for part 65 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707, 44709-
44711, 45102-45103, 45301-45302.
4. The authority citation for part 108 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 5103, 40113, 40119, 44701-44702,
44705, 44901-44905, 44907, 44913-44914, 44932, 44935-44936, 46105.
5. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119, 44101, 44701-44702,
44705, 44709-44711,
[[Page 37839]]
44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 44901, 44903-44904, 449112, 46105.
6. The authority citation for part 135 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44705, 44709,
44711-44713, 44715-44717, 44722.
7. SFAR 58 is amended by revising the expiration date in paragraph
13.
* * * * *
13. Expiration. This Special Federal Aviation Regulation terminates
on October 2, 2005, unless sooner terminated.
Issued in Washington, DC on June 8, 2000.
L. Nicholas Lacey,
Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 00-15206 Filed 6-15-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P