
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 242 (Friday, December 16, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 90979-90983]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30211]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 121

[Docket No.: FAA-2016-9526; Amdt. No. 121-397]
RIN 2120-AK95


Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft 
Dispatchers; Related Aircraft Amendment

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This rule allows air carriers to seek a deviation from the 
flight simulation training device (FSTD) requirements for related 
aircraft proficiency checks. As a result, this rule will eliminate an 
inconsistency that currently permits carriers that have obtained FAA 
approval to modify the FSTD requirements for related aircraft 
differences training, but not for corresponding proficiency checks. In 
doing so, it corrects an inadvertent omission from the Qualification, 
Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers final rule.

DATES: Effective January 17, 2017.
    Submit comments on or before February 14, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2016-9526 
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your 
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S. 
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room 
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket 
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at 202-493-2251.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments 
from the public to better inform its rulemaking

[[Page 90980]]

process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal 
information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as 
described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can 
be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at 
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions 
for accessing the docket or Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the 
West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sheri Pippin, Air Transportation 
Division, AFS-200, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence 
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-8166; email 
sheri.pippin@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary

    This rule will allow air carriers to seek a deviation from the FSTD 
requirements for related aircraft proficiency checks based on a related 
aircraft designation and determination of an equivalent level of 
safety. As a result, this rule will eliminate an inconsistency that 
currently permits carriers that have obtained FAA approval to modify 
the FSTD requirements for related aircraft differences training, but 
not for corresponding proficiency checks.

II. Administrative Procedure Act and Legal Authority

A. Good Cause for Immediate Adoption

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 
U.S.C. 553) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment 
procedures for rules when the agency for ``good cause'' finds that 
those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the 
public interest.'' Under this section, an agency, upon finding good 
cause, may issue a final rule without seeking comment prior to the 
rulemaking.
    The FAA finds that notice and public comment to this final rule are 
unnecessary. This final rule corrects an inadvertent omission from the 
Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers 
(Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers Training) final rule by providing 
certificate holders additional flexibility in the selection of an FSTD 
for related aircraft proficiency check maneuvers and procedures based 
on a determination of an equivalent level of safety. As a result, this 
rule is relieving for certificate holders. In addition, in the process 
of drafting and implementing the suite of rules culminating in the 
Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers Training final rule, the FAA 
sought comment on, and thoroughly considered, comments regarding 
related aircraft proficiency checks. The updates to Sec.  121.441(f) 
contained in this final rule offer additional flexibility; in that, air 
carrier certificate holders can request permission to deviate from 
related aircraft proficiency check requirements when the proficiency 
check is conducted in full, or in part, in an FSTD. Therefore, the FAA 
has determined that notice and public comment are unnecessary prior to 
the adoption of this amendment.

B. Comments Invited

    The FAA is adopting this final rule without prior notice and public 
comment because it corrects an inadvertent omission from the 
Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers Training final rule and the FAA 
previously sought comment on and considered comments regarding related 
aircraft proficiency checks. The Regulatory Policies and Procedures of 
the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 1134; February 26, 1979), 
provide that to the maximum extent possible, operating administrations 
for the DOT should provide an opportunity for public comment on 
regulations issued without prior notice. Accordingly, consistent with 
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures and 14 CFR 11.11, the FAA seeks 
comment on this Final Rule.

C. Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in 
Title 49 of the United States Code. This rulemaking is promulgated 
under the authority described in 49 U.S.C. 106(f), which vests final 
authority in the Administrator for carrying out all functions, powers, 
and duties of the administration relating to the promulgation of 
regulations and rules, and 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), which requires the 
Administrator to promulgate regulations and minimum standards for other 
practices, methods, and procedures necessary for safety in air commerce 
and national security.

III. Background

    On November 12, 2013, the FAA published the Qualification, Service, 
and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers final rule (78 FR 
67800). In that final rule, effective March 12, 2014, the FAA included 
opportunities for air carriers to modify training program requirements 
for flightcrew members when the air carrier operates multiple aircraft 
types with similar design and flight handling characteristics. The 
final rule also included opportunities for air carriers to seek a 
deviation to allow credit for flightcrew member qualification 
requirements, including proficiency checks, when the air carrier 
operates multiple aircraft types with similar design and flight 
handling characteristics.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As the FAA clarified in its final rule, the agency uses the 
term ``related aircraft'' when describing two or more aircraft of 
the same make (with either the same or different type certificates) 
that have been demonstrated and determined by the Administrator to 
have commonality to the extent that flightcrew member training, 
checking, recent experience, operating experience, operating cycles, 
and line operating flight time for consolidation of knowledge and 
skills may be reduced while still meeting the training and 
qualification requirements for service on the other aircraft. 78 FR 
at 67816.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule explained that due to differences in instrumentation 
and installed equipment, crewmembers trained on one variation of 
aircraft type may require additional training to safely and efficiently 
operate another variation of the same aircraft type. This additional 
training is identified in regulations as differences training.\2\ The 
final rule further explained that the FAA, through the Flight 
Standardization Board (FSB), provides an analysis of the differences 
between variations of an aircraft type, which the FSB documents in an 
FSB report for a specific aircraft type. This report may include 
recommendations on reduced training frequency, reduced training 
elements or events, or use of a lower level FSTD than required by part 
121 appendix E (Flight Training Requirements) for a specific maneuver 
or procedure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Sec. Sec.  121.400 and 121.418.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the final rule explained the rapid advancement in 
modern technologies, both in manufacturing techniques and systems 
design and application, can produce aircraft types of differing models 
and aerodynamic airframes, with similar handling or flight 
characteristics. These modern aircraft systems and displays may allow 
different type certificated aircraft to have common flight deck and 
systems designs, such that minimal differences training may be 
warranted. The FAA, through the FSB, can analyze these aircraft with 
different type certificates which may result in recommendations for 
training reductions.

[[Page 90981]]

Statement of the Problem
    In the Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers Training final rule, 
the FAA intended to extend fully the differences training concept to 
aircraft with different type certificates within the new provisions for 
related aircraft differences training. In addition, an air carrier may 
seek deviations for related aircraft proficiency checks, operating 
experience, operating cycles, line operating flight time for 
consolidation of knowledge and skills, and recency of experience.
    In the Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers Training final rule, 
the FAA added paragraph (f) to Sec.  121.441, to allow the 
Administrator to approve a deviation to the proficiency check 
requirements based on a designation of related aircraft and after the 
Administrator determines the certificate holder can demonstrate an 
equivalent level of safety. Specifically, paragraph (f) allows a 
deviation from the frequency of proficiency checks and from certain 
procedures and maneuvers required by appendix F (Proficiency Check 
Requirements). Paragraph (f) did not, however, include an allowance to 
obtain a deviation from the FSTD requirements specified in appendix F. 
As currently written, Sec.  121.441(f) does not allow deviation if the 
FSB determines that the use of a lower level FSTD for a specific 
maneuver or procedure may be acceptable on a related aircraft 
proficiency check. Such a determination by the FSB would foreseeably be 
based on similarities in design and flight characteristics between the 
base aircraft and the related aircraft.

IV. Discussion of Final Rule

    This final rule will correct an inadvertent omission from the 
Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers 
final rule by eliminating an inconsistency that currently permits air 
carriers (with FAA approval) to modify the FSTD requirements for 
related aircraft differences training, but not for related aircraft 
proficiency checks. Because the FAA intended to extend fully the 
differences training concept to related aircraft differences training 
and deviations, the FAA is revising Sec.  121.441(f)(2) to allow a 
certificate holder to request a deviation from the FSTD requirements in 
paragraph (c) of Sec.  121.441. To receive a deviation, the certificate 
holder must provide a designation of related aircraft and demonstrate 
an equivalent level of safety exists to justify the deviation. By this 
update, the request for deviation must include the level of FSTD to be 
used for each maneuver and procedure.
    Requests for deviation remain voluntary. The FAA has determined 
this change would not adversely affect safety of aircraft operations. A 
deviation from any proficiency check requirement under Sec.  121.441(f) 
is only available if the certificate holder has a designation of 
related aircraft. Such a designation indicates the base aircraft and 
designated related aircraft have been demonstrated and determined by 
the Administrator to have commonality; the certificate holder must be 
able to demonstrate that it can maintain the equivalent level of safety 
in obtaining the designation.

V. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

A. Regulatory Evaluation

    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. 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, the Trade 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). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's 
analysis of the economic impacts of this final rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies 
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. 
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule 
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement 
to that effect and the basis for it to be included in the preamble if a 
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 
Such a determination has been made for this rule. This rule would 
remove additional requirements with respect to proficiency checks for 
aircraft of a related type, as long as FAA has made a determination 
that an equivalent level of safety is maintained. Given the relieving 
nature of this rule, the economic impact of this rule would be minimal 
cost.
    The FAA has, therefore, determined that this rule is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of 
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's 
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

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-for-profit 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, the agency must 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA 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 rule would correct an inadvertent omission from the 
Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers Training final rule and would 
eliminate an inconsistency that currently permits air carriers (with 
FAA approval) to modify the FSTD requirements for related aircraft 
differences training, but not for related aircraft proficiency checks. 
This action would result in increased flexibility for certificate 
holders. While the rule would likely impact a substantial number of 
small

[[Page 90982]]

entities,\3\ given the relieving nature of this rule, it would have a 
minimal positive economic impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Based on an analysis of publicly available information, the 
FAA assumed that the Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers Training 
final rule would have an impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. We make the same determination in this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA 
certifies that this rulemaking will not result in a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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. The FAA has 
assessed the potential effect of this rule and determined that the rule 
will have the same impact on international and domestic flights and is 
a safety rule thus is consistent with the Trade Agreements Act.

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 inflation-adjusted value of $155 million in lieu of $100 
million. This rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the 
requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires 
that the FAA 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)(1)), 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.
    The FAA has determined that there is no new information collection 
associated with this cost relieving amendment to related aircraft 
proficiency check requirements. The OMB previously approved the 
collection of such information under the provisions of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) and it was assigned OMB 
Control Number 2120-0739.

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 that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices 
that correspond to these 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 5-6.6 and involves no extraordinary 
circumstances.

VI. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this final 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, Promoting International Regulatory 
Cooperation, 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 that this action would have 
no effect on international regulatory cooperation.

VII. 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 FAA to comply with small entity requests for information 
or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its 
jurisdiction.

[[Page 90983]]

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 on the Internet, visit http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 121

    Air carriers, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety.

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration amends 14 CFR part 121 as follows:

PART 121--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL 
OPERATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40119, 41706, 
42301 preceding note added by Pub. L. 112-95, sec. 412, 126 Stat. 
89, 44101, 44701-44702, 44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 
44722, 44729, 44732, 46105; Pub. L. 111-216, 124 Stat. 2348 (49 
U.S.C. 44701 note); Pub. L. 112-95, 126 Stat. 62 (49 U.S.C. 44732 
note).


0
2. Amend Sec.  121.441 by revising paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2) 
introductory text, and (f)(2)(ii) to read as follows:


Sec.  121.441  Proficiency checks.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (1) The Administrator may authorize a deviation from the 
proficiency check requirements of paragraphs (a), (b)(1), and (c) of 
this section based upon a designation of related aircraft in accordance 
with Sec.  121.418(b) of this part and a determination that the 
certificate holder can demonstrate an equivalent level of safety.
    (2) A request for deviation from paragraphs (a), (b)(1), and (c) of 
this section must be submitted to the Administrator. The request must 
include the following:
* * * * *
    (ii) Based on review of the related aircraft, the operation, and 
the duty position:
    (A) For recurrent proficiency checks, the frequency of the related 
aircraft proficiency check, the maneuvers and procedures to be included 
in the related aircraft proficiency check, and the level of FSTD to be 
used for each maneuver and procedure.
    (B) For qualification proficiency checks, the maneuvers and 
procedures to be included in the related aircraft proficiency check and 
the level of FSTD to be used for each maneuver and procedure.
* * * * *

    Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f) and 44701(a) 
in Washington, DC, on December 8, 2016.
Michael P. Huerta,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-30211 Filed 12-15-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


