Qualification, Service, and Use of Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers; Related Aircraft Amendment, 90979-90983 [2016-30211]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
90979
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
REVISIONS TO IFR ALTITUDES & CHANGEOVER POINT—Continued
[Amendment 530 Effective Date, January 5, 2017]
From
To
§ 95.6126
VOR Federal Airway V126 is Amended to Read in Part
ERIE, PA VORTAC ........................................................................................
*3900—MOCA
§ 95.6140
*2400—MOCA
HARME, TN FIX ............................................................................................
*2900—MOCA
*6000
CONCORD, NH VOR/DME ..........................................................................
*2900
KELLI, NH FIX ..............................................................................................
5000
BRADFORD, PA VOR/DME .........................................................................
*5000
LIVINGSTON, TN VOR/DME .......................................................................
3800
VOLUNTEER, TN VORTAC .........................................................................
6100
VOR Federal Airway V493 is Amended to Read in Part
LIVINGSTON, TN VOR/DME ........................................................................
§ 95.6513
LIVINGSTON, TN VOR/DME .......................................................................
VOR Federal Airway V384 is Amended to Read in Part
LIVINGSTON, TN VOR/DME ........................................................................
§ 95.6493
*3000
*6000
VOR Federal Airway V321 is Amended to Read in Part
SHELBYVILLE, TN VOR/DME ......................................................................
§ 95.6384
HARME, TN FIX.
E BND ...........................................................................................................
W BND ..........................................................................................................
VOR Federal Airway V170 is Amended to Read in Part
ERIE, PA VORTAC ........................................................................................
*3900—MOCA
§ 95.6321
*5000
VOR Federal Airway V141 is Amended to Read in Part
MANCHESTER, NH VOR/DME .....................................................................
*2100—MOCA
CONCORD, NH VOR/DME ...........................................................................
§ 95.6170
BRADFORD, PA VOR/DME .........................................................................
VOR Federal Airway V140 is Amended to Read in Part
NASHVILLE, TN VORTAC ............................................................................
§ 95.6141
MEA
LEXINGTON, KY VORTAC ..........................................................................
3600
VOR Federal Airway V513 is Amended to Read in Part
LIVINGSTON, TN VOR/DME ........................................................................
NEW HOPE, KY VOR/DME .........................................................................
4000
Changeover points
From
To
Distance
From
§ 95.8003 VOR Federal Airway Changeover Point
Airway Segment is Amended to Add Changeover Point V321
SHELBYVILLE, TN VOR/DME .......................................
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 121
[Docket No.: FAA–2016–9526; Amdt. No.
121–397]
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
RIN 2120–AK95
Qualification, Service, and Use of
Crewmembers and Aircraft
Dispatchers; Related Aircraft
Amendment
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:15 Dec 15, 2016
Jkt 241001
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.
SUMMARY:
[FR Doc. 2016–29429 Filed 12–15–16; 8:45 a.m.]
Federal Aviation Administration
LIVINGSTON, TN VOR/DME .........................................
Effective January 17, 2017.
Submit comments on or before
February 14, 2017.
DATES:
Send comments identified
by docket number FAA–2016–9526
using any of the following methods:
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
40
SHELBYVILLE
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://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
E:\FR\FM\16DER1.SGM
16DER1
90980
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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
https://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.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:15 Dec 15, 2016
Jkt 241001
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 § 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
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
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.
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.
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.
2 See §§ 121.400 and 121.418.
E:\FR\FM\16DER1.SGM
16DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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 § 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, § 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.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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
§ 121.441(f)(2) to allow a certificate
holder to request a deviation from the
FSTD requirements in paragraph (c) of
§ 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:15 Dec 15, 2016
Jkt 241001
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 § 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
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
90981
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-forprofit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to
determine whether a rule will have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. If
the agency determines that it will, 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
E:\FR\FM\16DER1.SGM
16DER1
90982
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
entities,3 given the relieving nature of
this rule, it would have a minimal
positive economic impact.
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.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
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
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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:15 Dec 15, 2016
Jkt 241001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 (https://www.regulations.gov);
2. Visit the FAA’s Regulations and
Policies Web page at https://
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or
3. Access the Government Printing
Office’s Web page at: https://
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 https://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.
E:\FR\FM\16DER1.SGM
16DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 242 / Friday, December 16, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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 https://
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/
rulemaking/sbre_act/.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 121
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
Air carriers, Aircraft, Airmen,
Aviation safety.
The Amendment
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
In consideration of the foregoing, the
Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR part 121 as follows:
Bureau of Industry and Security
PART 121—OPERATING
REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG,
AND SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONS
[Docket No. 160922876–6876–01]
RIN 0694–AH14
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).
2. Amend § 121.441 by revising
paragraphs (f)(1), (f)(2) introductory text,
and (f)(2)(ii) to read as follows:
■
§ 121.441
Proficiency checks.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
(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 § 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:15 Dec 15, 2016
Jkt 241001
15 CFR Part 774
Implementation of the February 2016
Australia Group (AG) Intersessional
Decisions and the June 2016 AG
Plenary Understandings
Bureau of Industry and
Security, Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Bureau of Industry and
Security (BIS) publishes this final rule
to amend the Export Administration
Regulations (EAR) to implement the
recommendations presented at the
February 2016 Australia Group (AG)
Intersessional Implementation Meeting,
and later adopted pursuant to the AG
silent approval procedure, and the
understandings reached at the June 2016
AG Plenary Implementation Meeting.
This rule amends two Commerce
Control List (CCL) entries to reflect the
February 2016 Intersessional
Implementation Meeting
recommendations that were adopted by
the AG. Specifically, this rule amends
the CCL entry that controls certain
human and zoonotic pathogens and
toxins to reflect the AG updates to the
nomenclature for certain bacteria and
toxins identified on the AG ‘‘List of
Human and Animal Pathogens and
Toxins for Export Control.’’ In addition,
this rule amends the CCL entry that
controls equipment capable of handling
biological materials to reflect the AG
updates to the controls on cross
(tangential) flow filtration equipment
described on the AG ‘‘Control List of
Dual-Use Biological Equipment and
Related Technology and Software.’’
Consistent with the understandings
adopted at the June 2016 AG Plenary
Implementation Meeting that updated
the AG ‘‘List of Human and Animal
Pathogens and Toxins for Export
Control,’’ this rule amends the CCL
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
90983
entry that controls certain human and
zoonotic pathogens and toxins by
removing dengue fever virus, updating
the nomenclature of the listing for
conotoxin, and consolidating the
controls for Shiga toxin and Verotoxin
(and other Shiga-like ribosome
inactivating proteins) under a single
listing. This rule also amends the CCL
entry that controls equipment capable of
handling biological materials by
updating the controls on biological
containment facilities and related
equipment and the controls on
fermenters, consistent with the AG
Plenary Implementation Meeting
updates to the AG ‘‘Control List of DualUse Biological Equipment and Related
Technology and Software.’’
DATES: This rule is effective December
16, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Richard P. Duncan, Ph.D., Director,
Chemical and Biological Controls
Division, Office of Nonproliferation and
Treaty Compliance, Bureau of Industry
and Security, Telephone: (202) 482–
3343, Email: Richard.Duncan@
bis.doc.gov.
The
Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) is
amending the Export Administration
Regulations (EAR) to implement the
recommendations presented at the
Australia Group (AG) Intersessional
Implementation Meeting held in
Brussels, Belgium, on February 2, 2016,
and adopted pursuant to the AG silent
approval procedure in April 2016, and
the understandings reached at the
Implementation Meeting of the 2016 AG
Plenary held in Paris, France, from June
6–10, 2016. The AG is a multilateral
forum consisting of 41 participating
countries that maintain export controls
on a list of chemicals, biological agents,
and related equipment and technology
that could be used in a chemical or
biological weapons program. The AG
periodically reviews items on its control
list to enhance the effectiveness of
participating governments’ national
controls and to achieve greater
harmonization among these controls.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Amendments to the CCL Based on the
February 2016 AG Intersessional
Recommendations
ECCN 1C351 (Human and Animal
Pathogens and ‘‘toxins’’)
This final rule amends Export Control
Classification Number (ECCN) 1C351 on
the CCL to update the nomenclature for
two bacteria and five toxins, consistent
with the AG Intersessional
Implementation Meeting updates to the
AG ‘‘List of Human and Animal
E:\FR\FM\16DER1.SGM
16DER1
]]>Agencies
[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 https://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
https://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 (https://www.regulations.gov);
2. Visit the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or
3. Access the Government Printing Office's Web page at: https://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 https://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 https://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
