Advanced Qualification Program, 16370-16382 [05-6141]

Agencies

• Federal Aviation Administration
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 60 (Wednesday, March 30, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16370-16382]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-6141]



[[Page 16369]]

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

Part III





Department of Transportation





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



Federal Aviation Administration



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



14 CFR Part 61, et al.



Advanced Qualification Program; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 30, 2005 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 16370]]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 61, 63, 65, 121, and 135

[Docket No. FAA-2005-20750; Notice No. 05-04]
RIN 2120-AI59


Advanced Qualification Program

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is proposing to codify the requirements of the 
Advanced Qualification Program (AQP). The AQP would continue as a 
regulatory alternative program to the traditional training program. AQP 
would continue to be an alternative for airlines that seek more 
flexibility in training than the traditional training program allows. 
Currently, the AQP requirements are in a Special Federal Aviation 
Regulation that expires on October 2, 2005. The intended effect of this 
proposal is to make AQP a permanent, alternative method of complying 
with FAA's training requirements for carriers.

DATES: Send your comments on or before April 29, 2005.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments [identified by Docket Number FAA-2005-
20750] using any of the following methods:
     DOT Docket Web Site: Go to https://dms.dot.gov and follow 
the instructions for sending your comments electronically.
     Government-wide Rulemaking Web Site: Go to https://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your 
comments electronically.
     Mail: Docket Management; U.S. Department of 
Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, 
Washington, DC 20590-001.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the 
Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For more information on the rulemaking process, see the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to 
https://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information you provide. For 
more information, see the Privacy Act discussion in the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to 
https://dms.dot.gov. You can also go to Room PL-401 on the plaza level 
of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, 
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas M. Longridge, 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; e-mail: 
thomas.longridge@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this 
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also 
invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or 
federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in 
this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion 
of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and 
include supporting data. We ask that you send us two copies of written 
comments.
    We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a 
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel 
concerning this proposed rulemaking. The docket is available for public 
inspection before and after the comment closing date. If you wish to 
review the docket in person, go to the address in the ADDRESSES section 
of this preamble between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays. You may also review the docket using the 
Internet at the Web address in the ADDRESSES section.
    Privacy Act: Using the search function of our docket Web site, 
anyone can find and read the comments received into any of our dockets. 
This includes the name of the individual sending the comment (or 
signing the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, 
etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the 
Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you 
may visit https://dms.dot.gov.
    Before acting on this proposal, we will consider all comments we 
receive on or before the closing date for comments. We will consider 
comments filed late if it is possible to do so without incurring 
expense or delay. We may change this proposal in light of the comments 
we receive.
    If you want the FAA to acknowledge receipt of your comments on this 
proposal, include with your comments a preaddressed, stamped postcard 
on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on the 
postcard and mail it to you.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by:
    (1) Searching the Department of Transportation's electronic Docket 
Management System (DMS) Web page (https://dms.dot.gov/search);
    (2) Visiting the Office of Rulemaking's Web page at https://
www.faa.gov/avr/arm/index.cfm; or
    (3) Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at https://
www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html.
    You can also get a copy 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. Make 
sure to identify the docket number, notice number, or amendment number 
of this rulemaking.

Authority for the Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is 
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, section 106 
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's 
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 
subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, General requirements. 
Under that section, the FAA is charged with promoting the safe flight 
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing, in addition to 
specified regulations, regulations and minimum standards for other 
practices, methods, and procedure the Administrator finds necessary for 
safety in air commerce and national security. This regulation is within 
the scope of that authority since it permanently codifies the current 
requirements and practices of a regulatory compliance option for the 
training and qualification of air crew personnel, and represents the 
FAA's continuing efforts to promote aviation safety.

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

[[Page 16371]]

factors problems and to increase the safety benefits gained from the 
simulation. At the urging of the air transportation industry, the FAA 
addressed the hardware issue first. In 1980, this effort resulted in 
the FAA developing the Advanced Simulation Program, 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 creating a 
Joint Government-Industry Task Force on flight crew performance (Joint 
Task Force). Representatives from major air carriers and air carrier 
associations, flight crewmember associations, commuter air carrier and 
regional airline associations, and government organizations took part. 
On September 10, 1987, the Joint Task Force met at the Air Transport 
Association's headquarters to identify and discuss flight crewmember 
performance issues. The Joint Task Force formed working groups in three 
major areas: (1) Man/machine interface; (2) flight crewmember training; 
and (3) operating environment. Each working group submitted a report 
and recommendations to the Joint Task Force. On June 8, 1988, the Joint 
Task Force presented its recommendations to Administrator McArtor.
    The major recommendations to the Administrator from the flight 
crewmember 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.
    The working group listed specific recommendations for regulatory 
changes. They separated the recommendations 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. Because of its 
investigation, the NTSB recommended that all part 121 carriers review 
initial and recurrent flight crew 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 No. 58, Advanced 
Qualification Program (AQP), which addresses all of the recommendations 
discussed previously. The FAA also published an Advisory Circular on 
AQP that describes an acceptable method by which the terms of the SFAR 
may be achieved. Under SFAR No. 58, the FAA provides certificated air 
carriers, as well as training centers they employ, with a regulatory 
alternative for training, checking, qualifying, and certifying aircrew 
personnel subject to the requirements of 14 CFR parts 121 and 135.
    Air carriers can choose to use a traditional training program or to 
participate in AQP. Carriers electing not to take part in AQP must 
continue to operate under the traditional FAA rules for training and 
checking. AQP offers several long-range advantages to participation 
such as the flexibility to tailor training and certification activities 
to a carrier's particular needs and operational circumstances. AQP 
encourages innovation in developing training strategies. It includes 
wide latitude in choice of training methods and media. AQP allows the 
use of flight training devices for training and checking on many tasks 
that historically have been accomplished in airplane simulators. It 
provides an approved means for the applicant to replace FAA-mandated 
uniform qualification standards with carrier-proposed alternatives 
tailored to specific aircraft. It allows the applicant to set up 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 the 
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 main goal of the AQP SFAR was to improve flight crew 
performance by providing alternative means of complying with certain 
rules that may inhibit innovative use of modern technology for flight 
crewmember training. The SFAR has been successful in encouraging 
carriers to become innovative in their approach to training.
    The FAA is now proposing to incorporate the requirements of SFAR 
No. 58 into 14 CFR part 121. The AQP would continue as an alternative 
to the traditional training program. AQP would continue to be an 
alternative for airlines that seek more flexibility in training than 
the traditional program allows. Thus, this NPRM proposes no new costs 
to affected operators.

Section-by-Section Discussion of Subpart Y (Sec. Sec.  121.901-121.925)

    This section by section discussion presents the proposed changes to 
the AQP. AQP is currently in SFAR No. 58 under part 121. Any 
significant, substantive change and the justification for that change 
is discussed under the appropriate proposed section below.

Section 121.901 Purpose and Eligibility

    The proposed section outlines the purpose and eligibility of the 
alternate method of training and qualification, known as ``Advanced 
Qualification Program.'' The AQP is an alternative

[[Page 16372]]

method for qualifying, training, certifying, and otherwise ensuring 
competency of flight crewmembers, flight attendants, and dispatchers. 
Proposed paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) are based on existing language 
from SFAR No. 58, section 1.

Section 121.903 General Requirements for Advanced Qualification 
Programs

    Proposed paragraph (b) states that certificate holders who get 
approval of an AQP must comply with its provisions. Proposed paragraph 
(b) clarifies that an AQP is an alternative to complying with the 
training and qualification requirements for crewmembers, aircraft 
dispatchers, instructors, and evaluators in parts 61, 63, 65, 121, and 
135. Proposed paragraph (b) also states that each applicable 
requirement of parts 61, 63, 65, 121, or 135 that is not specifically 
addressed in an AQP curriculum would continue to apply to the 
certificate holder and to the individuals being trained and qualified 
by the certificate holder. The FAA may accept alternatives for the 
practical test requirements of parts 61, 63, and 65, but each 
applicable requirement of parts 61, 63, 65, 121, or 135, including but 
not limited to practical test requirements, that is not specifically 
addressed in an approved AQP curriculum would continue to apply to the 
certificate holder. This proposal is based on existing SFAR No. 58, 
section 1, paragraph (e), section 8, paragraph (a), and section 10, 
paragraph (b)(3). A new sentence in paragraph (b) would add that no 
person may be trained under an AQP unless the AQP is currently approved 
and the person complies with all of its provisions.
    Proposed paragraph (c) states that no certificate holder that 
conducts its training program under an AQP may use any person, nor may 
any person serve in any duty position, as a required crewmember, an 
aircraft dispatcher, a flight instructor, or an evaluator (e.g., a 
check airman, check flight attendant, or aircrew program designee 
(APD)), unless that person has satisfactorily accomplished the training 
and evaluation of proficiency required by the AQP for that type 
airplane and duty position. The prohibition against using a person in 
operations under this part who has not accomplished the required 
training and evaluation would also apply to any person receiving 
``special tracking'' training, whose schedule for training and 
evaluating may be different from others employed by that certificate 
holder.
    Proposed paragraph (d) states that all documentation and data 
required under this subpart must be submitted in a form and manner 
acceptable to the FAA. This proposal is based on existing SFAR No. 58, 
section 10, paragraph (b)(1).
    Proposed paragraph (e) states that any training or evaluation 
required under an AQP that is satisfactorily completed in the calendar 
month before or the calendar month after the calendar month in which it 
is due is considered to have been completed in the calendar month it 
was due. This proposal provides some flexibility in complying with an 
AQP and is consistent with the practice of current AQP participants. It 
is based on existing SFAR No. 58, section 6, paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(A); 
however, in the current SFAR, the provision applies only to on-line 
evaluations of pilots-in-command (PIC). The FAA is proposing to broaden 
this provision to apply to any training and evaluation deadline for any 
duty position.

Section 121.905 Confidential Commercial Information

    This proposed section is new and specifies the procedure for a 
certificate holder to make a claim that AQP information or data 
submitted to the FAA is entitled to confidential treatment under 5 
U.S.C 552 (b)(4). The certificate holder must clearly identify its 
claim of confidentiality on each submission and must justify that 
claim. The FAA office of primary responsibility for the AQP will 
evaluate a submitter's claim for confidential treatment of information 
or data. The FAA office of primary responsibility for the AQP will make 
the determination whether the information submitted is entitled to 
protection under 5 U.S.C 552(b)(4), within a reasonable time, and with 
review by the Office of the Chief Counsel.

Section 121.907 Definitions

    This proposed section contains definitions used throughout proposed 
subpart XXX. The proposed definitions of ``evaluator'' and ``variant'' 
contain language from the existing definition in SFAR No. 58, section 
2. The following definitions are new: ``Crew Resource Management 
(CRM),'' ``Curriculum outline,'' ``Evaluation of proficiency,'' ``First 
Look,'' ``Instructional systems development,'' ``Job task listing,'' 
``Line operational evaluation (LOE),'' ``Line operational simulation 
(LOS),'' ``Planned hours,'' ``Qualification standard,'' ``Qualification 
standards document,'' ``Special tracking,'' and ``Training session.'' 
``Line operational evaluation'' is an evaluation conducted in a 
simulated line environment consisting of a complete scenario. 
``Instructional systems development'' is defined as ``a systematic 
methodology for deriving and maintaining qualification standards and 
associated curriculum content based on a documented analysis of the job 
tasks, skills, and knowledge required for job proficiency.'' Under 
proposed Sec.  121.909 AQP applicants must provide a description of the 
methodology they will use for instructional systems development. The 
FAA provides guidance in the AQP Advisory Circular.

Section 121.909 Approval of Advanced Qualification Program

    Proposed paragraph (a), which outlines the approval process, is 
based on existing SFAR No. 58, section 10, paragraph (a). In the 
approval process, the certificate holder applies for approval of an AQP 
curriculum to the Manager of the Advanced Qualification Program, after 
going through the FAA office responsible for approval of the 
certificate holder's operations specifications. The existing rule 
states that the certificate holder applies for approval to the 
certificate holder's FAA Flight Standards District Office. The new 
wording reflects existing procedures for the review and approval of AQP 
documentation at both a local and a national level.
    Proposed paragraph (b), which discusses the application process for 
approval of an AQP curriculum, is based on existing SFAR No. 58, 
section 3 and section 10, paragraph (b). The introductory text of 
paragraph (b) specifies the applicant must have separate curriculums 
for indoctrination, qualification, and continuing qualification 
(including upgrade, transition, and requalification). The FAA is 
proposing new language to describe current requirements concerning the 
instructional systems development methodology. This new language would 
not impose any additional costs on the operator as we are just 
codifying and clarifying the requirements of the AQP. This methodology 
would have to incorporate a thorough analysis of the certificate 
holder's operations, aircraft, line environment, and job functions. All 
AQP qualification and continuing qualification curriculums would have 
to integrate the training and evaluation of CRM and technical skills 
and knowledge.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(1) states the AQP would have to meet all the 
requirements of proposed subpart Y. Proposed paragraph (b)(2) adds new 
language to describe current curriculum documentation requirements for 
indoctrination, qualification, and

[[Page 16373]]

continuing qualification (including upgrade, transition, and 
requalification). The documentation for each curriculum would have to 
include the initial application for AQP, the initial job task listing, 
a description of the instructional systems development methodology, a 
qualification standards document, the curriculum outline, and an 
implementation and operations plan. Applicants are not required to have 
all types of curriculums (e.g., indoctrination, qualification, 
continuing qualification). However, for each curriculum they propose, 
they must provide the documentation required in paragraphs (b)(2)(i)-
(vi).
    AQP participants may propose requirements in addition to, or in 
place of, the requirements in part 61, 63, 65, 121, or 135. An approved 
AQP serves as an alternative to the requirements in parts 61, 63, 65, 
121, and 135. The applicant must justify any differences between parts 
61, 63, 65, 121, and 135 and the AQP. The FAA must approve such 
differences for that AQP.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(3) states that, subject to approval by the 
FAA, certificate holders could elect, where appropriate, to consolidate 
information about multiple programs within any of the documents 
referenced in proposed paragraph (b)(2). For example, if an applicant 
has more than one curriculum for different aircraft, the applicant 
could provide one document that addresses one or more curriculums.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(4) is similar to existing SFAR No. 58, 
section 10, paragraph (b)(3). Under the proposed rule the certificate 
holder would have to establish an initial justification and a 
continuing process, approved by the FAA, to show how the AQP curriculum 
provides an equivalent level of safety for each requirement in parts 
61, 63, 65, 121, or 135 that is replaced by an AQP curriculum. The 
continuing process is, in effect, a quality assurance process. For each 
certificate holder using an AQP, the FAA receives annual reports, data 
submissions, and information on the performance of flight instructors 
and evaluators. The FAA studies these to make sure the certificate 
holder continually evaluates itself to ensure that it continues to meet 
the AQP agreement. This expectation of self-monitoring on the part of 
certificate holders is not specifically addressed in the current SFAR, 
but certificate holders currently using AQPs are using quality 
assurance programs. This change would codify that practice.
    Proposed paragraph (c) refers only to the requirement in existing 
SFAR No. 58, section 10, paragraph (c), for AQP applications to include 
a transition plan for moving from an existing program to an AQP 
program. The reference in existing SFAR No. 58, section 10(c), to 
revisions of an AQP has been moved entirely to proposed paragraph (d).
    Proposed paragraph (d) addresses rescissions of approval and 
requirements for revisions. It is the same as existing SFAR No. 58, 
section 10, paragraph (d) except that it deletes reference to Sec.  
135.325, to allow revisions to be approved in accordance with the 
applicant's approved AQP and proposed subpart Y. Proposed paragraph (d) 
adds to existing language, which states the FAA may require the 
certificate holder to submit revisions or to submit and obtain approval 
of a transition plan to part 121, subpart N, if the FAA finds the 
certificate holder is not meeting the provisions of the certificate 
holder's approved AQP. This requirement just codifies current practice 
therefore there is no additional costs imposed on the operator. The 
proposed paragraph (d) adds to that language the words, ``or if 
otherwise warranted''. This additional language would permit approval 
to be withdrawn for any reason that the FAA finds to be warranted. This 
could include, for example, a determination that compliance with the 
approved program is no longer consistent with safety. Also, a new 
sentence is added to paragraph (d) that would allow for the use of a 
transition plan, approved under proposed subpart Y, as a means for 
accomplishing voluntary withdrawal from the AQP, when such withdrawal 
is initiated by the certificate holder. The existing SFAR does not 
specifically address the use of a transition plan as a means for 
voluntary withdrawal.
    Proposed paragraph (e) is new language stating that final approval 
of an AQP by the FAA would indicate that the FAA has accepted the 
justification provided under paragraph (b)(4) and that the applicant's 
initial justification and a continuing process establish an equivalent 
level of safety for each requirement of parts 61, 63, 65, 121 or 135 
that is being replaced.

Section 121.911 Indoctrination Curriculum

    The proposed section is based on existing language from SFAR No. 
58, section 4. Proposed paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) are the same 
as existing SFAR No. 58, section 4, paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d), 
respectively.

Section 121.913 Qualification Curriculum

    The proposed section contains requirements for qualification 
curriculums and is based on existing SFAR No. 58, section 5, paragraph 
(b). In the proposed Sec.  121.913 introduction, ``qualification'' from 
existing SFAR No. 58, section 5, paragraph (b), is changed to 
``evaluation,'' because ``evaluation'' is the more specific term in 
this context.
    Proposed paragraph (a) contains a requirement for documentation of 
the certificate holder's planned hours of training, evaluation, and 
supervised operating experience. The proposed paragraph is the same as 
existing SFAR No. 58, section 5, paragraph (a).
    Proposed paragraph (b) contains qualification curriculum 
requirements for crewmembers, aircraft dispatchers, and other 
operations personnel. Proposed paragraph (b) is based on existing SFAR 
No. 58, section 5, paragraph (b)(1). In the proposed paragraph (b)(2) 
the term ``qualification standards of each task'' is used instead of 
``each maneuver and procedure.'' New language is also added in proposed 
(b)(4), stating that each qualification curriculum would have to 
include a list of and text describing evaluation/remediation 
strategies, provisions for special tracking, and how recency of 
experience requirements would be accomplished. This new language is 
codifying current practice and would not impose any additional costs on 
the operator.
    Proposed paragraph (c) is new language and would require 
qualification to include an initial operating experience and line check 
for flight crewmembers. This new language is current practice and would 
not impose any additional costs on the operator as we are just 
codifying and clarifying the requirements of the AQP. The language of 
paragraph (c) is more specific than under the current SFAR, but this 
practice is currently followed by certificate holders under AQP.
    Proposed paragraphs (d) and (e) outline qualification curriculum 
requirements for flight instructors and evaluators, respectively. 
Proposed paragraph (d) is based on existing SFAR No. 58, section 5, 
paragraph (b)(2). Proposed paragraph (e) is based on existing SFAR No. 
58, section 5, paragraph (b)(3). New language is added to each, 
clarifying current requirements to include a list of and text 
describing the knowledge requirements, subject materials, job skills, 
and qualification standards of each procedure and task to be trained 
and evaluated, and a list of and text describing evaluation/remediation 
strategies, standardization policies and recency requirements. This new 
language would not impose any additional costs on the operator as we 
are just codifying and clarifying the requirements of the AQP.

[[Page 16374]]

Section 121.915 Continuing Qualification Curriculum

    The proposed section contains program requirements for continuing 
qualification curriculums. The introductory paragraph is based on 
existing SFAR No. 58, section 6 introduction.
    Proposed paragraph (a) is based on existing SFAR No. 58, section 6, 
paragraphs (a)(1) and (b). The existing language states that each 
person qualified under AQP receives a balanced mix of training and 
evaluation to ensure that he or she ``maintains at least the current 
minimum proficiency level of knowledge, skills, and attitudes required 
for original qualification.'' In the proposed paragraph the 
introductory language is changed to state that each person ``maintains 
the proficiency level in knowledge, technical skills, and cognitive 
skills required for initial qualification.'' The proposed paragraph 
revises the current rule to state that this training and evaluation 
must be in accordance with: (1) The approved continuing qualification 
AQP; (2) evaluation/remediation strategies; and (3) provisions for 
special tracking.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(1), which discusses continuing qualification 
cycle evaluation periods, is based on existing SFAR No. 58, section 6, 
paragraph (b)(1). New language is included that defines the continuing 
qualification cycle as initially consisting of two or more evaluation 
periods of equal duration. This new language would not impose any 
additional costs on the operator as we are just codifying current 
practice.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(2), which outlines continuing qualification 
cycle training requirements, is based on existing SFAR No. 58, section 
6, paragraph (b)(2). The proposed paragraph revises the requirements to 
state that continuing qualification training must be in accordance with 
the approved program documentation.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(i) is new language codifying current 
practice that states that for pilots in command, seconds in command, 
and flight engineers, continuing qualification training must include 
First Look in accordance with the certificate holder's FAA-approved 
program documentation. This new language would not impose any 
additional costs on the operator. ``First Look'' is defined in proposed 
Sec.  121.907 as the assessment of performance to determine proficiency 
on designated flight tasks before any briefing, training, or practice 
on those tasks is given in the training session for a continuing 
qualification curriculum. The FAA proposes that ``First Look'' be 
conducted during an AQP continuing qualification cycle to determine 
trends of degraded proficiency, if any, due in part to the length of 
the interval between training sessions.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(ii) addresses ground training 
requirements for continuing qualification and is the same as existing 
SFAR No. 58, section 6, paragraph (b)(2)(i).
    Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(iii) outlines continuing qualification 
proficiency training requirements for crewmembers, flight instructors, 
evaluators, and other operational personnel who conduct their duties in 
flight. It is based on existing SFAR No. 58, section 6, paragraph 
(b)(2)(ii).
    Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(iv) outlines continuing qualification 
ground training requirements for dispatchers and other operational 
personnel who do not conduct their duties in flight, and is based on 
existing SFAR No. 58, section 6, paragraph (b)(2)(i). The proposed 
paragraph adds a requirement for a line observation program, if 
applicable.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(v) is based on existing SFAR No. 58, 
section 6, paragraph (b)(2)(iii), but with clarifying language to 
separately address: (1) Flight instructors and evaluators, in general; 
and (2) flight instructors and evaluators who are limited to conducting 
their duties in flight simulators and flight training devices. 
Continuing qualification for each group must include training in the 
type flight training device or the type flight simulator, as 
appropriate, regarding training equipment operation and training in 
operational flight procedures and maneuvers (normal, abnormal, and 
emergency), respectively.
    Proposed paragraph (b), which outlines continuing qualification 
cycle evaluation requirements, is based on existing SFAR No. 58, 
section 6, paragraph (b)(3). The existing language is revised to state 
that evaluation of performance for continuing qualification will be 
done ``on a sample'' of events and major subjects. Existing SFAR No. 
58, section 6(b)(3) states that continuing qualification evaluations 
must include all events and major subjects required for original 
qualification, and online evaluations for pilots in command and other 
eligible flight crewmembers; however, current AQPs use a sample of 
events. Under the proposed paragraph (b) requirements, the sample of 
events and major subjects used in evaluation would be identified as 
diagnostic of competence and approved for that purpose by the FAA.
    Instead of basing curriculums on prescribed generic maneuvers, 
procedures and knowledge items, AQP curriculums are based on a detailed 
analysis of the specific job tasks, knowledge and skill requirements of 
each duty position for the individual airline. The analysis applies the 
following factors: Criticality, currency, need for training, applicable 
conditions, and applicable standards. The determination of criticality 
and currency guides when and how the objective is trained, validated, 
or evaluated. To make this determination the applicant and FAA answer a 
series of questions about each task to describe its performance 
requirements, both on the line and in the training setting. Criticality 
is a determination of the relative impact of substandard task 
performance on overall safety. It indicates an increased need for 
awareness, care, exactness, accuracy, or correctness during task 
performance. Critical tasks are proficiency objectives that are 
trained, validated, or evaluated more frequently during an AQP 
evaluation period. A currency task is a proficiency objective for which 
individuals or crews maintain proficiency by repeated performance of 
the item in normal line, duty or work operations. Most currency items 
are validated during line checks and may be sampled in the Continuing 
Qualification Cycle. Tasks that are determined to be critical and not 
current are trained, validated, or evaluated each evaluation period. 
Tasks that are determined to be neither critical nor current are 
trained, validated, or evaluated each continuing qualification cycle.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(1), which contains requirements for 
evaluations of proficiency, is the same as existing SFAR No.58, section 
6, paragraph (b)(3)(i).
    Proposed paragraph (b)(2), which discusses line checks, is based on 
existing SFAR No. 58, section 6, paragraph (b)(3)(ii) with a few 
revisions. The term ``online evaluations'' is changed to ``line 
checks'' in the proposed language. Further, proposed paragraph 
(b)(2)(i), which addresses line checks for pilots in command, begins 
with the qualifying statement ``Except as provided in paragraph 
(b)(2)(ii) of this section * * *''
    Paragraph (b)(2)(ii) is new language that addresses ``No-notice 
Line Checks.'' The proposed language states that with the FAA's 
approval, no-notice line checks could be used in place of line checks, 
although the certificate holder who elects to exercise this option 
would have to ensure that no advance notice of the evaluation is given. 
Further, the AQP certificate holder would be required to ensure that 
each pilot in

[[Page 16375]]

command receives at least one ``no-notice'' line check every 24 months. 
Also, the certificate holder would have to ensure that, at a minimum, 
the number of these checks given each calendar year equates to at least 
50% of the certificate holder's pilot-in-command workforce, in 
accordance with a strategy approved by the FAA for that purpose. Under 
this proposed requirement, the line checks would be conducted over all 
geographic areas flown by the certificate holder in accordance with a 
sampling methodology approved by the FAA for that purpose. This 
proposed language is consistent with existing exemptions that have been 
granted to some AQP certificate holders in order to allow a longer 
period between line checks in exchange for such no-notice line checks. 
The no-notice feature of the random line check procedure provides 
evaluators with an increased opportunity to observe typical behavior, 
and the requirement for conducting such checks over all geographic 
routes better assures that such information is representative of 
performance over the airline's entire operation.
    Proposed paragraph (b)(2)(iii), which further addresses line check 
requirements, is the same as existing SFAR No. 58, section 6, paragraph 
(b)(3)(ii)(B), except that it codifies the existing requirement in 
Sec.  121.440(b)(1) and contains the additional requirement that the 
line check evaluator must hold the certificates and ratings required of 
the pilot in command for that aircraft.
    Proposed paragraph (c), which discusses recency of experience 
requirements, is based on existing SFAR No. 58, section 6, paragraphs 
(a)(2) and (b)(4). The proposed paragraph expands the existing 
application of the recency of experience requirements to include flight 
engineers, flight attendants, aircraft dispatchers, instructors, and 
evaluators.
    Proposed paragraph (d), which addresses duration of cycles and 
periods, is based on existing SFAR No. 58, section 6, paragraph (c), 
but includes revisions to the existing duration of periods, based on 
the FAA's observations of program administration since the original 
inception of the AQP in 1990. The proposed changes decrease the maximum 
allowable duration of the initial continuing qualification cycle 
approved for an AQP from 26 to 24 calendar months. Also, the proposed 
requirements would decrease the duration ceiling for the subsequent 
continuing qualification cycles from 39 to 36 calendar months in order 
to accommodate evaluation period multiples based on 6, 12, or 18 
months. This new language would not impose any additional costs on the 
operator. The reductions above align the timeframes with current 
practice. An AQP participant has never requested the maximum durations. 
The language in the existing SFAR that the Administrator may approve 
extensions in 3-month increments has been deleted because the FAA has 
found this requirement cumbersome and difficult to implement. 
Regardless of the length of the continuing qualification cycle, the 
grace period allowed in proposed Sec.  121.903(e) would apply.
    Proposed paragraph (e), which discusses requalification 
requirements, is the same as existing SFAR No. 58, section 6, paragraph 
(d).

Section 121.917 Other Requirements.

    Proposed Sec.  121.917 is based on existing SFAR No. 58, section 7. 
These proposed paragraphs contain additional requirements that must be 
included in each AQP qualification and continuing qualification 
curriculum.
    Proposed paragraph (a) requires each qualification curriculum to 
include integrated crew resource management (CRM) or Dispatcher 
Resource Management (DRM) ground and flight training applicable to each 
position for which training is provided under an AQP. Proposed 
paragraph (a) is the same as existing SFAR No. 58, section 7, paragraph 
(a), except that ``Approved Cockpit Resource Management Training'' is 
changed to ``Integrated Crew Resource Management ground and flight 
training'' in the proposed paragraph. Also, the requirement for DRM 
training is added to clarify that if dispatchers are included under an 
AQP, they must also receive DRM training.
    Proposed paragraph (b) would require each qualification curriculum 
to include approved training on and evaluation of skills and 
proficiency of each person being trained under AQP to use their crew 
resource management skills and their technical skills in an actual or 
simulated operations scenario. Proposed paragraph (b) is the same as 
existing SFAR No. 58, section 7, paragraph (b), except that under the 
proposed rule, ``aircraft'' is added to the list of approved devices 
for flight crewmembers training and evaluation for certificate holders 
who have obtained approval for its use under subpart Y.
    Proposed paragraph (c) outlines qualification curriculum data 
collection and analysis processes requirements. Proposed paragraph (c) 
is based on existing SFAR No. 58, section 7, paragraph (c), but 
proposed paragraph (c) is revised to address both data collection and 
analysis processes. The FAA proposes to require that the certificate 
holder provide the FAA with information on its analysis process to 
ensure that the certificate holder is applying an effective methodology 
for data driven quality assurance purposes. Further, the proposed 
paragraph states that the data will enable both the certificate holder 
and the FAA to make determinations about the effectiveness of the 
curriculum. This new language would not impose any additional costs on 
the operator. This change is consistent with existing AQP practices, 
and is made in order to identify the requirement that the certificate 
holder employ its own AQP data for curriculum effectiveness 
determinations.

Section 121.919 Certification

    The proposed introductory paragraph to this section is identical to 
existing SFAR No. 58, section 8 introduction.
    Proposed paragraph (a) outlines the establishment of a 
certification requirement and is based on existing SFAR No. 58, section 
8, paragraph (a). Existing SFAR No. 58, section 8, paragraph (a), 
states that for certification the Administrator may accept substitutes 
for the practical test requirements of parts 61, 63, and 65, as 
applicable. Proposed paragraph (a) replaces the word ``substitutes'' 
with ``alternatives'' to the certification and rating criteria of parts 
61, 63, and 65 of this chapter. It also adds further qualifying 
language, to the effect that the FAA may approve such alternatives if 
it can be demonstrated that the newly established criteria represent an 
equivalent or better measure of airman competence, operational 
proficiency, and safety. This qualifying language is similar to the 
wording of existing SFAR No. 58, section 10(b)(3), to the effect that 
the certificate holder must show how the AQP curriculum provides an 
equivalent level of safety for each requirement that is replaced.
    Proposed paragraph (b) contains the qualification curriculum 
completion requirement for certification and is the same as existing 
SFAR No. 58, section 8, paragraph (b).
    Proposed paragraph (c) contains the knowledge and skill competency 
requirements for certification and is the same as existing SFAR No. 58, 
section 8, paragraph (c), except that ``cockpit resource management 
knowledge and skills'' is changed to ``crew resource management 
knowledge and skills,'' including either CRM or DRM, in the proposed 
paragraph. In addition, with regard to testing both piloting and CRM 
skills in scenarios that test both

[[Page 16376]]

together, proposed paragraph (c) identifies Line Operational Evaluation 
(LOE) as the scenario methodology. This new language would not impose 
any additional costs on the operator as we are just codifying current 
practice.
    Proposed paragraph (d) is identical to existing SFAR No. 58, 
section 8, paragraph (d).
    The FAA is adding paragraph (e) to require the certification 
applicant to be trained to proficiency on the certificate holder's 
approved AQP qualification standards, and to pass an LOE administered 
by an APD or the FAA. This new language should not impose any 
additional costs on the operator.
    This is current practice and would make clear that the final 
evaluation event for certification purposes under an AQP must be 
administered by the same level of evaluator as is required for a 
traditional part 121 or 135 program.

Section 121.921 Training Devices and Simulators

    Proposed paragraph (a) outlines the process for qualification and 
approval of flight training devices and simulators and is the same as 
existing SFAR No. 58, section 9, paragraph (a). Proposed paragraph (a) 
lists potential training device and simulator uses and is the same as 
existing SFAR No. 58, section 9, paragraph (a). Proposed paragraph (b), 
which contains requirements for the approval of other training devices, 
is the same as existing SFAR No. 58, section 9, paragraph (b).

Section 121.923 Approval of Training, Qualification, or Evaluation by a 
Person Who Provides Training by Arrangement

    Proposed paragraph (a), which discusses AQP training given by an 
outside source, referred to as a ``training provider,'' is based on 
existing SFAR No. 58, section 11, paragraph (a).
    Proposed paragraph (a)(1) would require that a training provider be 
a part 119 or part 142 certificate holder.
    Proposed paragraph (a)(2), which contains the requirements for 
provisional approval, is the same as existing SFAR No. 58, section 11, 
paragraph (a)(1), except that the application for provisional approval, 
under the proposed rule, would be made through the FAA office directly 
responsible for oversight of the training center, to the Manager of the 
Advanced Qualification Program. This change should not impose any 
additional costs on the operator. Proposed paragraphs (a)(3), (b), 
(b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), (c), (c)(1), and (c)(2), which contain 
requirements for the approval of training, qualification, or evaluation 
by a person who provides training by arrangement, are the same as 
existing SFAR No. 58, section 11, paragraphs (a)(2), (b), (b)(1), 
(b)(2), (b)(3), (c), (c)(1), and (c)(2), respectively.

Section 121.925 Recordkeeping requirements

    This proposed section, which contains recordkeeping requirements, 
is based on existing SFAR No. 58, section 12, with no substantive 
changes.
    Individual recordkeeping by certificate holders is needed to show 
whether each crewmember, aircraft dispatcher, or other operations 
personnel is in compliance with the AQP and subpart Y. The 
recordkeeping requirement of Sec.  121.925 is a separate function from 
the data collected and analyzed under the requirements of proposed 
Sec.  121.917(c), which must be submitted to the FAA for analysis and 
validation without names or other elements that would identify an 
individual or group of individuals. The data collected under Sec.  
121.917 is analyzed to monitor the effectiveness of AQP training, to 
determine the validity of requests for extensions of training intervals 
and cycles, and to monitor the effectiveness of CRM training.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposal contains the following new information collection 
requirements. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. 3507(d)), the FAA has submitted the information requirements 
associated with this proposal to the Office of Management and Budget 
for its review.
    Title: Advanced Qualification Program.
    Summary: AQP is an existing rule and the data currently required is 
being submitted. Data collection and analysis of data is a fundamental 
part of AQP. AQP is continuously validated through the collection and 
analysis of trainee performance. Data collection and analysis processes 
ensure that the certificate holder provides performance information on 
its crewmembers, flight instructors, and evaluators that will enable 
the certificate holder and the FAA to determine whether the forma and 
content of training and evaluation activities are satisfactorily 
accomplishing the overall objectives of the curriculum.
    Use of: The Voluntary Safety Programs Branch, AFS-230, receives the 
AQP data monthly in order to monitor program compliance, effectiveness, 
and efficiency. AFS-230 processes the information for errors and 
omissions then analyzes the data. The FAA principal operations 
inspector (POI) responsible for oversight of the certificate holder 
reviews the analyzed data. The POI and his staff make use of this 
information to monitor training trends, to identify areas in need of 
corrective action, to plan targeted surveillance of curricula, and to 
verify that corrective action is effective. In general, this 
information is used to provide an improved basis for curriculum 
approval and monitoring, as well as agency decisions concerning air 
carrier training regulation and policy.
    Respondents (Including Number of): The likely respondents to this 
proposed data collection requirement are 16 airlines and 2 
manufacturers.
    Frequency: The frequency of data collection is monthly.
    Annual Burden Estimate: This proposal would result in an annual 
recordkeeping and reporting burden as follows:
     Number of respondents with approved AQPs: 18.
     Frequency of response per respondent: Monthly.
     Estimated number of hours per respondent to prepare 
information to be submitted to the FAA: 2.0.
     Estimated annual hour burden per respondent: 24.
     Total estimated hours of industry burden: 432.
    The estimated 2-hour burden is the time required to transform the 
data already produced monthly by the certificate holder as part of an 
approved AQP into the appropriate form for use by the FAA.
    Currently sixteen airlines and two manufacturers have established 
AQP programs. However, not all of the participants' aircraft fleet 
types (personnel) are covered by an AQP. Based on a cost benefit study 
from certificate holders with existing AQP programs, the average cost 
of an AQP analyst is $60 per hour. Therefore, the maximum cost of this 
burden is:
     Industry per annum (432 hours) $25,920.
     Each participant per annum (24 hours) $1440.
    The agency is soliciting comments to--
    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is 
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, 
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;
    (3) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to 
be collected; and
    (4) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those 
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated,

[[Page 16377]]

electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology.
    Individuals and organizations may submit comments on the 
information collection requirement by April 29, 2005, and should direct 
them to the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document.
    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 OMB control number. 
The OMB control number for this information collection will be 
published in the Federal Register, after the Office of Management and 
Budget approves it.

International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on 
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with 
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 proposed regulations.

Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    Proposed changes to Federal Regulations must undergo several 
economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each 
Federal agency propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 
determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify the 
costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies 
to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. 
Third, the Trade Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 2531-2533) prohibits 
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to 
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. 
standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider international 
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for 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, or $100 
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation).
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies 
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. 
If it is determined that the expected impact is so minimal that the 
proposal does not warrant a full evaluation, a statement to that effect 
and the basis for it is included in the proposed regulation.
    This NPRM proposes to make permanent an existing temporary 
regulatory alternative for operators to comply with carrier training 
requirements. We have not prepared a ``regulatory evaluation,'' which 
is the written cost/benefit analysis ordinarily required for all 
rulemaking under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures, because 
such an evaluation is not required where the economic impact of a rule 
is minimal. The FAA requests comments with supporting justification 
regarding the FAA determination of minimal impact.
    In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined this rule (1) 
has minimal costs, 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; 
(2) will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number 
of small entities; (3) will not reduce barriers to international trade; 
and (4) does not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal 
governments, or on the private sector.

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 
business, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to 
regulation.'' To achieve that principle, the RFA requires agencies to 
solicit and consider regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale 
for their actions. 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 proposed or 
final 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 the 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 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.
    Because we are proposing to make permanent an existing temporary 
regulatory alternative for operators to comply with carrier training 
requirements, we certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We solicit 
comments on this determination.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from 
establishing any standards or engaging in 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. 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 effect on any trade-
sensitive activity.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act) is intended, 
among other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal 
mandates on State, local, and tribal governments. Title II of the Act 
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 (adjusted 
annually for inflation) 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 $120.7 million in lieu of $100 
million.
    This NPRM does not contain such a mandate. The requirements of 
Title II of the Act, therefore, do not apply.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and 
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We 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

[[Page 16378]]

on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various 
levels of government, and therefore would not have federalism 
implications.

Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E 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 proposed rulemaking action qualifies for the 
categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 312f and involves no 
extraordinary circumstances.

Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 
Use

    The FAA has analyzed this NPRM under Executive Order 13211, Actions 
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not 
a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order because it is 
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, 
and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the 
supply, distribution, or use of energy.

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

    Airmen, Aviation safety, Air transportation, Aircraft.

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

    The Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend parts 61, 63, 
65, 121, and 135 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR parts 
61, 63, 65, 121 and 135) as follows:

PART 61--CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND 
INSTRUCTORS

    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, 45301-45302.


SFAR No. 58  [Removed]

    2. Remove SFAR No. 58 from part 61.
    3. Amend 61.58(b) by removing ``SFAR 58'' and adding ``subpart Y of 
part 121 of this chapter'' in its place.

PART 63--CERTIFICATION: FLIGHT CREWMEMBERS OTHER THAN PILOTS

    4. 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.


SFAR No. 58  [Removed]

    5. Remove SFAR No. 58 from part 63.

PART 65--CERTIFICATION: AIRMEN OTHER THAN FLIGHT CREWMEMBERS

    6. 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.


SFAR No. 58  [Removed]

    7. Remove SFAR No. 58 from part 65.

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

    8.-9. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 40119, 41706, 44101, 44701-
44702, 44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 44901, 44903-
44904, 44912, 45101-45105, 46105, 46301.


SFAR No. 58  [Removed]

    10. Remove Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) No. 58.--
Advanced Qualification Program from part 121.
    11. Add subpart Y to read as follows:

Subpart Y--Advanced Qualification Program

Sec.
121.901 Purpose and eligibility.
121.903 General requirements for Advanced Qualification Programs.
121.905 Confidential commercial information.
121.907 Definitions.
121.909 Approval of Advanced Qualification Program.
121.911 Indoctrination curriculum.
121.913 Qualification curriculum.
121.915 Continuing qualification curriculum.
121.917 Other requirements.
121.919 Certification.
121.921 Training devices and simulators.
121.923 Approval of training, qualification, or evaluation by a 
person who provides training by arrangement.
121.925 Recordkeeping requirements.


Sec.  121.901  Purpose and eligibility.

    (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of parts 61, 63, 65, 121, 135, 
and 142 of this chapter, this subpart provides for approval of an 
alternative method (known as ``Advanced Qualification Program'' or 
``AQP'') for qualifying, training, certifying, and otherwise ensuring 
competency of crewmembers, aircraft dispatchers, other operations 
personnel, flight instructors, and evaluators who are required to be 
trained under parts 121 and 135 of this chapter.
    (b) A certificate holder is eligible under this subpart if the 
certificate holder is required or elects to have an approved training 
program under Sec. Sec.  121.401, 135.3(c), or 135.341 of this chapter.
    (c) A certificate holder obtains approval of each proposed 
curriculum under this AQP as specified in Sec.  121.909.


Sec.  121.903  General requirements for Advanced Qualification 
Programs.

    (a) A curriculum approved under an AQP may include elements of 
existing training programs under part 121 and part 135 of this chapter. 
Each curriculum must specify the make, model, series or variant of 
aircraft and each crewmember position or other positions to be covered 
by that curriculum. Positions to be covered by the AQP must include all 
flight crewmember posit