member requirements, the requalification phases were based on the
number of months the person has been unqualified. Despite the lack of
regulatory requirements in the current rules, however, many air
carriers have developed requalification curriculums as part of their
FAA-approved training programs. These curriculums were based on FAA
advisory material regarding flight attendant requalification. See FAA
Order 8900.1, Vol. 3, Ch. 23, Sec. 1, para. 3-1727, 1728 (Sept. 17,
2009).
    The FAA reviewed the FAA-approved flight attendant training
programs for 39 part 121 airlines, employing 82,673 flight attendants,
to determine the appropriate phases and training and evaluation
required for requalification. Of the 39 training programs reviewed, 37
had approved Requalification Training programs for flight attendants
and two did not. Similar to the flightcrew member requalification
programs, there was a wide variance in the phases of requalification
and content of requalification. See FAA Technical Report, appendix D.
However, the FAA found that generally the current approved programs, in
both programmed hours and curriculum content, were very similar to
proposed requirements for phase I requalification. There was more
variance regarding curriculum content and the number of programmed
hours for requalification requirements for flight attendants who had
been unqualified for over 24 months. Based on the wide variance in
current requalification programs as evidenced in appendix D in the FAA
Technical Report, the FAA has determined that it is necessary to
establish a uniform standard for requalification programs and has based
the proposed requirements on the FAA guidance in Order 8900.1, Vol. 3,
Ch.23, Sec.1, para. 3-1727, 1728 (Sept. 17, 2009). Thus, proposed Sec.
121.1309 establishes that to be requalified, the flight attendant must
meet either the requirements for basic qualification or requalification
based on the amount of time the person has been unqualified.
    The FAA received several comments regarding the requirement in
phase I and phase II requalification that flight attendants complete
all missed training, including all study materials and evaluations from
the previous recurrent flight attendant training cycle(s) which were
still applicable but were not included in the current recurrent flight
attendant training cycle. Commenters expressed concerns that such a
requirement to maintain past training programs was burdensome and
unnecessary and limited the carrier's flexibility to determine the most
efficient manner to provide flight attendant training on tasks,
policies, and procedures that were missed in previous training cycles.
One commenter stated that air carriers would have to re-create previous
years' recurrent training for each returning flight attendant, keeping
track of and maintaining every lesson plan, training aid, presentation
and computer-based training course offered during the time the flight
attendant was not able to accomplish recurrent training.
    To simplify the requalification requirements, the FAA is combining
previously proposed phase I and phase II into phase I requalification
and redesignating phase III as phase II requalification. In addition,
in the SNPRM, the FAA is retaining the requirement for a flight
attendant to complete all missed training but is removing the
requirement to include all missed study materials and evaluations

from the previous recurrent flight attendant training cycle(s).
Recurrent training tasks are based on new hire, initial, and emergency
curriculum category task requirements. Because of the large number of
tasks, in the NPRM and SNPRM, the FAA has required air carriers to
train and evaluate flight attendants on all tasks at least once during
three consecutive recurrent training cycles. To ensure that flight
attendants in phase I requalification receive the necessary information
from the missed recurrent training cycle(s), which may have included
emphasis on different tasks, the FAA is proposing to require that a
flight attendant receive training on all tasks that were included in
the missed recurrent training cycle(s). In addition, the certificate
holder would be required to provide training on all new policies,
procedures, and security requirements applicable to flight attendant
duties that have been implemented since the last time the flight
attendant completed recurrent training. Additionally, in phase I
requalification, a flight attendant must complete a knowledge test on
all new hire, initial, and emergency curriculum category tasks.
    The FAA did not intend to create an undue administrative burden by
requiring an air carrier to retain old training and evaluation
documents. Therefore, in the SNPRM the FAA has removed the requirement
that the certificate holder must include all study materials and
evaluations from the previous recurrent training cycle. The FAA
believes this change will still ensure that flight attendants receive
the training content that they missed, while reducing the
administrative burden.
    American Eagle and RAA expressed concern that the Administrator has
the ability to determine the programmed hours for requalification. They
contend that, without guidelines to the air carrier and Certificate
Management Offices, this provision could lead to non-standardization
and a competitive disadvantage for some carriers.
    In the NPRM and the SNPRM, for different phases of flight attendant
requalification, the FAA proposed requiring completion of certain
curriculum categories that have baseline and minimum program hours. For
example, in the SNPRM, for phase I requalification, the flight
attendant must complete the current recurrent cycle and also complete
required information or tasks from the last recurrent cycle that are
not included in the current recurrent cycle. Therefore, the required
hours for phase I requalification are based on recurrent curriculum
category programmed hours plus the time necessary to complete training
content that was not contained in the current recurrent training cycle.
The requirements for phase II requalification are based on the
curriculum requirements for new hire, initial, emergency, and
differences curriculum categories. Upon review, the FAA believes that
establishing a standard curriculum is appropriate for phase II
requalification. However, due to operational differences, the time
necessary to complete the training would vary. Therefore, the FAA has
revised Sec.  121.1309 of the SNPRM to remove the requirement for
minimum programmed hours that was proposed in the NPRM.
    American Eagle stated that, within the industry, a corporation may
hold several certificates in which there is a combined flight attendant
seniority list that allows flight attendants to transfer between
certificates. It contends that compliance with requalification
requirements for multiple air carriers would require additional,
expensive automation that is not accounted for in the cost benefit
analysis. It commented that the proposed rule's impact on the carrier
is significant in the area of increases in wages for training and
associated costs for hotel and per diem allowances.
    Regardless of whether there is a merged seniority list, under the
current rule, NPRM, and SNPRM, flight attendants must meet the training
and qualification requirements for each certificate holder for which
they serve as a flight attendant. The proposal in the NPRM and SNPRM
merely establishes the records that need to be maintained; it does not
specify the type of recordkeeping system that must be used. Therefore,
an air carrier may determine the complexity of its recordkeeping
system. In addition, the FAA has addressed the cost of flight attendant
training, including hotels and per diem allowances, in the regulatory
evaluation, which is available in the docket.
    American Eagle and RAA sought clarification regarding the
requirement to change a base month and contended that the software that
is currently used at many air carriers would require extensive change
to accommodate the requalification requirements. The FAA notes that the
proposed requirements in the SNPRM do not prohibit the adjustment of
the flight attendant's base month in both phase I and phase II
requalification. If an air carrier decides to adjust the base month,
the FAA believes that the training requirements for phase I and II
requalification would ensure that the flight attendant remains trained
and qualified.
    Continental stated that, for the proposed requalification
requirements, carriers ultimately would be forced to have additional
staff on hand to recreate and facilitate the proposed crew or combined
exercises for classes as small as a single student. There is nothing in
the proposed rule that requires air carriers to conduct a certain task
as a group exercise. The FAA notes that, under the proposed
requirements in the SNPRM, the tasks identified in the QPS requirements
as ``G'' may be conducted as either an individual or a group exercise;
however, those identified as ``I'' must be conducted on an individual
basis.
    ATA questioned what data supports requiring Basic Qualification
Training, including 5 hours of operating experience on at least one
aircraft type (AOE) after being unqualified for more than 24 months. In
addition, the Association of Professional Flight Attendants (APFA)
believes check flight attendants should be used only for new hire
flight attendant training and not to perform check flight attendant
duties for experienced flight attendants who are accomplishing
requalification training.
    The FAA believes that after an extended absence from line
operations, flight attendants need an opportunity to consolidate re-
acquired knowledge and skills. The FAA recognizes, however, that there
may be alternative methods of accomplishing this without requiring AOE.
In the SNPRM, the FAA is removing the AOE requirement for phase II
requalification and is proposing to allow flight attendants for the
first two operating cycles after completing phase II requalification to
serve either as a required flight attendant under the supervision of a
check flight attendant or as a non-required flight attendant.
3. Aircraft Dispatcher Requalification (Sec.  121.1419)
    Current rules are also silent on how dispatchers who have failed to
maintain their qualification may become requalified. It is current FAA
policy that, in order to requalify, a person must retake the recurrent
training, tests, or checks that were missed and, in some cases, receive
additional training or evaluation to become requalified as a
certificated aircraft dispatcher. See FAA Order 8900.1, Vol. 3, Ch. 22,
Sect. 5, para 3-1708.
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to establish five phases of
requalification for aircraft dispatchers who have become unqualified by
failing to complete recurrent training and evaluation requirements,
including the proficiency checks required by proposed Sec.
121.1413(a)(2). Midwest

commented that having five different levels of requalification is
excessive and creates undue administrative burdens. It requested that
the FAA combine phase I and phase II requalification to cover 0 to 12
months. It also recommended that, due to the rapidly changing nature of
the industry, the FAA require phase V requalification for all
dispatchers who have been unqualified for 24 months. RAA also commented
that creating five phases of requalification training is impracticable.
It recommended that requalification should be focused on a training-to-
proficiency concept. UPS requested clarification on the timeline for
phase I and phase II requalification.
    In developing the requalification requirements for the SNPRM, the
FAA reviewed existing guidance material as well as the FAA-approved
aircraft dispatcher training programs for 23 part 121 airlines, to
determine the appropriate phases and training and evaluation required
for requalification. All 23 air carriers had approved requalification
training programs for aircraft dispatchers. Similar to the flightcrew
member and flight attendant requalification programs, there was a wide
variance in the phases of requalification and content of
requalification. See FAA Technical Report, appendix E. However, the FAA
found that generally the current approved programs, in both programmed
hours and curriculum content, were very similar to proposed
requirements for phase I requalification. There was more variance
regarding curriculum content and the number of programmed hours for
requalification requirements for aircraft dispatchers who had been
unqualified for over 12 months. Accordingly, the FAA has determined
that a uniform standard for aircraft dispatcher requalification is
necessary and has based the proposed requirements on the FAA guidance
in Order 8900.1, Vol. 3, Ch. 22, Sect. 5, para 3-1708.
    In the SNPRM, the FAA is proposing to establish three levels of
requalification instead of the five phases proposed in the NPRM. In
merging the five phases into three, the FAA simplified the
administrative burden without reducing the amount of training proposed
in the NPRM. For example, in the NPRM, phase I requalification required
certain training if the aircraft dispatcher was unqualified for less
than 6 months. Phase II requalification required more training if the
aircraft dispatcher was unqualified for at least 6 months but less than
12 months.
    In the SNPRM, the FAA is proposing to merge phase I and II
requalification into phase I requalification for aircraft dispatchers
who have been unqualified for less than 12 months, redesignate phase
III requalification as phase II requalification for aircraft
dispatchers who have been unqualified at least 12 months, but less than
24 months, and merge phase IV and V requalification into phase III
requalification for aircraft dispatchers who have been unqualified for
24 months or more. The training required for phase I in the SNPRM is
equivalent to what would have been required for phase II in the NPRM,
and the training required for phase III in the SNPRM is equivalent to
what would have been required for phase V. Therefore, there is no
decrease in the training required to return a dispatcher to
proficiency.
    Midwest commented, in regard to the requirement that a student in
phase V requalification must complete the assigned materials within 60
days, that there would be times when a student may require additional
time to complete the assigned materials. Midwest requested that the FAA
remove the 60-day limit and instead establish an appropriate number of
days to complete requalification requirements in each phase of
requalification.
    In the SNPRM, the time limit for completing new phase III (phase V
in the NPRM) has been extended under the SNPRM to 120 days, consistent
with the time limit for initial training and evaluation for new
aircraft dispatchers. This provision will provide the flexibility
requested by commenters while maintaining an adequate requalification
requirement for an aircraft dispatcher when 24 months or more have
elapsed since the end of the aircraft dispatcher's base month for
recurrent training.
    American commented that the requalification training requirement
does not address under which date for requalification the dispatcher
necessarily falls. It asked whether the time required to complete
requalification is included in the ``unqualified'' time.
    Regardless of whether a person has begun requalification training,
the person remains unqualified until the training and evaluation is
completed. The longer a person has been unqualified, the more rigorous
the requirements are to become requalified. The amount of time required
to complete the training and evaluation is included in the
``unqualified'' time, and the air carrier must take this into account
when determining what phase of requalification is required.

IV. General Issues for Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers

A. Training Program: Approval and Amendment Process (Sec. Sec.
121.1337 and 121.1437)

    Under current regulations, requirements for training program
amendment and approval are found in Sec. Sec.  121.401, 121.402, and
121.405(a)-(e). In the NPRM, the FAA based the proposed amendment and
approval process language on current requirements and added more
specific requirements regarding necessary documentation, approval of a
new curriculum category (special training and evaluation), information
regarding instructors, and FAA review of amendments to the training
program in proposed Sec. Sec.  121.1337 and 121.1437.
    Continental, Midwest, ATA, United, FedEx, Southwest, American, UPS,
and RAA commented that the voluminous submission of documents required
for a minor revision is burdensome, redundant, and unnecessary.
Commenters stated that it should not be required in every submission of
a request for approval of curriculum changes. Commenters also requested
that a timeframe for FAA approval after a training program or training
program revision is submitted be included in the requirements.
    The intent of the proposed requirements was not to have certificate
holders resubmit redundant paperwork for approval of revisions to an
already approved training program. In the SNPRM, the FAA has proposed
adding a paragraph to Sec. Sec.  121.1337 and 121.1437 to clarify that
certificate holders are required to submit only the documents necessary
to allow the FAA to review and evaluate the requested revision to an
approved training program. In addition, the FAA believes that, in light
of the fact that the proposed requirement must accommodate revisions of
different sizes and complexity, it is inappropriate to set forth a
timeframe for FAA approval.
    ATA commented that the allowance to have submission of paperwork
required under these provisions ``in a form acceptable to the
Administrator'' allows for subjective interpretations of the
regulation. The FAA recognizes that the proposed requirement needs to
provide certificate holders with the flexibility to submit training
program materials via different types of media. However, it is also
necessary for certificate holders to submit training program materials
via a type of media that allows the FAA to effectively evaluate and
approve submissions. This provision was proposed in the NPRM

and is retained in the SNPRM to be able to achieve those two
objectives.
    ATA, Southwest, and UPS commented that initial and final FAA
approval of a training program is unnecessary. They stated that if any
portion of an approved training program is shown to be ineffective
through analysis of collected data, the Administrator may request
revisions to that portion of the training program. Southwest commented
that, if a proposed training program or revision meets the regulatory
requirements, it should be considered approved.
    The FAA agrees that any program that meets the regulatory
requirements should be approved. FAA review, evaluation, initial
approval, additional evaluation, and final approval of a training
program are the appropriate way to make the determination that a
training program meets the regulatory requirements. Therefore, in the
SNPRM, the FAA is retaining the language that requires initial and
final FAA approval of a training program.
    Midwest, ATA, United, FedEx, Southwest, American, and UPS commented
that resource management of instructors and evaluators is the
responsibility of the certificate holder and that submission of this
ever-changing data as part of the approval of the training program is
overly burdensome. Commenters requested that the FAA remove Sec.
121.1337(a)(3) and (4) from the proposed requirement. They also stated
that submission of crew operating manuals and the general operations
manual required in Sec.  121.1337(a)(10) and (11) is redundant because
the certificate holding district office already has a copy of those
manuals.
    The proposed requirements to submit the number of instructor and
evaluators as well as a copy of crewmember manuals that are already in
the possession of the certificate holding district office are not
necessary. Therefore, the FAA has removed these requirements from
Sec. Sec.  121.1337 and 121.1437.
    Southwest, ATA, and UPS commented that a statement that training
would be administered by persons other than the certificate holder
should be required only if there are plans to use non-employees for
instruction, as opposed to the proposed requirement to report whether
non-employees would be used for instruction. As proposed in the NPRM,
the requirement is administratively burdensome. In the SNPRM, the FAA
has amended the requirement to state that the certificate holder must
only indicate if they use non-employees for instruction and has revised
the proposed language in Sec. Sec.  121.1337(a)(7) and 121.1437(a)(5).
    FedEx, ATA, Midwest, and American commented on several proposed
requirements for the special curriculum category in Sec.  121.1337.
Midwest made similar comments regarding the proposed requirements for
the special curriculum category in Sec.  121.1437. Commenters stated
that depending on the duration of the circumstances, special training
and evaluation may not need to be integrated into the approved training
program. They contend that the proposed language did not address this
situation. Midwest commented that there are times when training is for
short-lived events and continued training would not be warranted. It
requested that the FAA change the wording to establish that special
training may be integrated into the approved training program if
appropriate. Commenters also stated that the POI should not determine
the proposed training hours but should only evaluate the number of
program hours submitted by the certificate holder for each special
curriculum category. They contend that the POI is not in the business
of developing training but is instead tasked with overseeing and
approving training developed by the certificate holder.
    The FAA recognizes that in some cases, training may be for short-
lived events and continued training would not be warranted. In the
SNPRM the FAA has amended the language to add ``if appropriate.'' In
addition, the FAA has determined that it is appropriate for the
certificate holder to develop the number of programmed hours for each
special curriculum category. Under Sec.  121.1337, the FAA has proposed
that the certificate holder would be required to submit its proposed
programmed hours to the POI for review. The POI would then determine
whether the number of programmed hours submitted by the certificate
holder for each special curriculum category are sufficient.
    Midwest, Southwest, American, FedEx, UPS, and ATA generally
commented that the appeal process for required revisions to FAA
approved training programs should be amended to require a full record
of decisions. They also commented that the initial appeal of a training
program amendment should be handled by the certificate holding district
office and that the next level of review should be accomplished by the
Administrator.
    The Administrator has an obligation to request necessary revisions
to ensure that crewmembers and aircraft dispatchers are being
appropriately trained. As with other regulations that permit the
exercise of discretion, a certificate holder has the opportunity to
appeal certain decisions through the consistency and standardization
initiative (CSI). The CSI process allows for multiple stages of review
within the FAA's Aviation Safety organization. In this process, the
certificate holder is provided with a similar process to that
requested, with the exception of the commenters' request to bypass
Flight Standards Service. The FAA believes that review by the Director
of the Flight Standards Service is essential because it represents the
final technical determination before a stakeholder may appeal to the
Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety. The CSI process allows for
multiple stages of review within the FAA's Aviation Safety organization
(AVS). At each level, and between levels, the review progresses through
increasingly higher levels of management. When an AVS action is
questioned or disputed, decision-makers at every level of AVS
management are expected to thoroughly review the matter and be
accountable for the answers provided. More information about this
process is available at http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/consistency_standardization. In the SNPRM,
the FAA has retained the language as originally proposed in the NPRM.
    Southwest commented that it was inappropriate for the FAA to
require an amendment to an approved training program for a security
reason. They stated that security requirements are not determined by
the FAA.
    Many Transportation Security Administration security requirements
affect a certificate holder's operational procedures. It is
appropriate, therefore, to include both safety and security as a basis
for necessary revisions to approved training programs. The FAA is
retaining this proposed language in the SNPRM.
    UPS, American Eagle, RAA, ATA, and Southwest recommended that
criteria for considering revisions to a certificate holder's training
program be withdrawn from Sec.  121.1337 and Sec.  121.1437 because
such factors as ``experience level of the student population'' would
create a bias against smaller certificate holders.
    The factors in Sec. Sec.  121.1337(g) and 121.1437(g) do not
correlate in any way to the size of the certificate holder. For
example, the experience level of the student population could apply to
a small operator that is introducing turbo-jet aircraft to their
operation or a very large operator that is moving for the first time to
international or over-water

operations. In addition, the NPRM and the SNPRM revise the current
requirements to clarify and update the basis on which the Administrator
decides to approve or deny revisions to a training program. All of
these factors are appropriate for FAA consideration when evaluating or
requiring training program revisions. Therefore, in the SNPRM, the FAA
has retained the language as proposed.

B. Crewmember and Aircraft Dispatcher Manuals and Manual Procedures
(Sec. Sec.  121.133, 121.134, 121.135, and 121.540)

    Currently, except for certain portions of flightcrew operating
manuals, manuals are ``accepted'' by the FAA. Manual content
requirements are broad and there is no specific language that addresses
crewmember and aircraft dispatcher responsibility for manual contents.
To address this issue, the FAA proposed revising Sec.  121.133 (Sec.
121.134 as proposed in the SNPRM) to require crewmember or aircraft
dispatcher manuals, as well as any changes, to be approved by the
Administrator. The FAA also proposed to require in Sec.  121.540 that
each crewmember perform the respective job function in accordance with
the information, instructions, duties, and responsibilities contained
in the manual required by Sec.  121.134. Conforming changes were
proposed for Sec.  121.136 (Sec.  121.135 as proposed in the NPRM), to
require consistency between training curriculums and manual procedures.
    American Eagle, Southwest, and ATA opposed the proposed requirement
for FAA approval of flight attendant manuals and stated that the FAA
failed to provide data or adequate justification to require all
revisions to flight attendant manuals to be approved by the FAA.
American Eagle and ATA further stated that there is no correlation
between (1) approved manuals and training performance, or (2) the way
an air carrier communicates its policies and procedures in flight
attendant manuals and the outcome of an accident. American Eagle,
Southwest and ATA also stated that changes in flight attendant manuals
often have a direct impact on the safety of the operation and require
timely communication to their flight attendants, which would be
affected by a lengthy FAA approval process for every revision to the
flight attendant manual. American Eagle, Southwest, United, RAA and ATA
generally commented that the proposed requirement for crewmember and
aircraft dispatcher manual approval also would result in redundant and
burdensome administrative requirements while unnecessarily extending
the time required to write, publish and distribute critical changes in
safety policies or procedures, severely restrict an air carrier's
ability to make timely changes to their programs, and significantly
impact the workload of the FAA.
    The FAA agrees that changes in flight attendant manuals have a
direct impact on the safety of the operation. The FAA disagrees that
there is no correlation between (1) flight attendant manuals and
training performance, or (2) the way an air carrier communicates its
policies and procedures in flight attendant manuals and the outcome of
an accident. The NTSB also has recognized the importance of the
development and availability of standardized procedures for flight
attendants. As stated in NTSB Report, ``Flight Attendant Training and
Performance During Emergency Situations'' ``although flight attendants
provide[d] valuable assistance to passengers during emergency
situations, they did not always follow their air carrier's approved
emergency procedures or perform their duties in accordance with their
training * * *. There are many examples of flight attendants who have
performed extremely well, even heroically, during life-threatening
emergencies and who were responsible for preventing and/or minimizing
injuries to passengers. Nonetheless, there have been many examples of
flight attendants who lacked knowledge about emergency equipment and
procedures, or who acted otherwise contrary to training.'' NTSB Special
Investigation Report 92/02, p. 35 (adopted June 9, 1992). In light of
the need to have standard operating procedures, the FAA has retained
the approval requirement in the SNPRM.
    Furthermore, the FAA does not anticipate any significant increase
in administrative burden or delay by requiring FAA approval of manuals.
The process by which a certificate holder revises a manual would not
change. The FAA approval of other safety critical information is now
currently required for revisions to the Airplane Flight Manual. The FAA
is not aware of any delays caused by this approval process. The FAA
expects that similar approval timeframes would apply to the proposed
requirements. The FAA also does not anticipate any increase in workload
for aviation safety inspectors to approve manual content because
aviation safety inspectors currently spend the same amount of time and
vigilance reviewing crewmember and aircraft dispatcher manual contents
for acceptance.
    ATA, RAA, United, UPS, Continental, American, Alaska, Midwest, TWU,
AFA, and several individuals opposed the implementation of Sec.
121.540, Manual Procedures Requirements, as proposed in the NPRM. They
all found the language to be too broad and overreaching to the extent
that FAA enforcement would extend to the level of detailed procedures
found in crewmember and aircraft dispatcher manuals. Many commenters
also found the inclusion of crewmember responsibility for
``information'' in the proposed requirements to be superfluous and
vague. Midwest, American, FedEx, United, UPS, and ATA proposed
alternate language to clarify airline and crewmember responsibilities
regarding safety-related job functions.
    The FAA agrees that the scope of tasks and procedures proposed in
the NPRM was overly broad and the inclusion of ``information'' in the
proposed language was too vague. In the SNPRM, the FAA is proposing to
limit those tasks and procedures for both manual approval and
crewmember responsibility to ``safety-related duties and tasks that
satisfy regulatory requirements.''
    ATA, American, Midwest, FedEx, and UPS stated that training
regulations should not include a requirement for compliance with the
flightcrew member operating manual. The commenters stated that there
may be times when a pilot is instructed to behave in a manner that may
conflict with what is specified in the Flightcrew Member Operating
Manual (FCOM) in order to complete a training objective (such as
incapacitated pilot, get into upset event, and check pilot training).
    The FAA notes that Sec.  121.540 requires that each crewmember must
perform the safety-related duties and tasks that satisfy regulatory
requirements contained in the manual that would be required by Sec.
121.134, and each certificate holder must ensure that each crewmember
is trained and checked in the respective safety-related duties and
responsibilities contained in the manual that would be required by
Sec.  121.134. Training and operational effectiveness are enhanced when
operational procedures and crewmember duties are thoroughly and
accurately defined. Accordingly, the FAA has retained the requirement
for compliance with the crewmember and aircraft dispatcher operating
manuals.

C. Distance Learning

    Current rules are silent on the use of distance learning to satisfy
training and qualification requirements under part

121. The FAA has defined distance learning in guidance as ``learning
that is accomplished by any training method not including an instructor
and a gathering of trainees co-located in a traditional classroom'' and
has provided guidance on the appropriate use of distance learning in
FAA Order 8900.1. See FAA Order 8900.1, Vol. 3, Ch. 19, Sec. 5, para.
3-1208 (Sept. 13, 2007) (flightcrew members); FAA Order 8900.1, Vol. 3,
Ch. 23, Sec. 5, para. 3-1833 (Sept. 13, 2007) (flight attendants); FAA
Order 8900.1, Vol. 3, Ch. 22, Sec. 3, para. 3-1661 (Sept. 13, 2007)
(aircraft dispatchers).
    In the SNPRM, the FAA proposes to codify the guidance material in
FAA Order 8900 regarding distance learning. The guidance material for
flightcrew members allows academic training and evaluation to be
conducted 100 percent via distance learning, while the current guidance
for aircraft dispatchers and flight attendants allows as much as 50
percent of academic training and evaluation to be conducted via
distance learning. For aircraft dispatchers, in accordance with
existing guidance, the FAA may approve distance learning in excess of
50 percent if the certificate holder can establish the effectiveness of
the distance learning. For flight attendants, the SNPRM does not
explicitly include a 50 percent limitation on distance learning.
However, the FAA has established limits in the SNPRM that are similar
to the 50 percent limit in current guidance by requiring defined
programmed hours for job performance training, which may not be
accomplished by distance learning.
    American Eagle and RAA recommended that the proposal be rewritten
to include a precise definition of distance learning. The FAA defines
distance learning in FAA Order 8900.1. The FAA did not define distance
learning in the regulations so as not to limit innovation in training
outside the traditional classroom.
    In Sec.  121.1335 of the NPRM and SNPRM, the FAA proposed to
require specific approval for instruction in a training environment
other than a classroom for all crewmembers and aircraft dispatchers.
The proposal allows certificate holders to conduct training outside a
traditional classroom setting. However, because such training
encompasses many different learning environments, technologies, and
instructional methods, the FAA has proposed to require that training
conducted in an environment other than a classroom, such as training
accomplished by distance learning, be specifically approved in order to
ensure that the training would provide the students with the knowledge
and cognitive skills to perform their required duties. However, because
this requirement is already captured in Sec.  121.1331, the FAA is
removing this section in the SNPRM.
    ATA, RAA, American, FedEx, UPS, Atlas Air, Inc, Southwest, and
Midwest were concerned that the proposed requirement that recurrent
training and evaluation begin and end within the eligibility period
would not allow for the use of year-round distance learning. In the
SNPRM, the FAA has removed the requirement that academic training begin
and end within the eligibility period. This would allow air carriers to
incorporate distance learning into their instructional design as long
as the training and evaluation are completed by the end of the
eligibility period. This change is necessary to accommodate year-round
distance learning, which can be an effective training delivery method.
    In regard to the 50% limit on distance learning for aircraft
dispatchers, Midwest commented that the FAA is in effect limiting
certificate holders to old and ineffective methods of training by
placing an artificially generated limit on distance learning for
aircraft dispatcher training. It contends that this limitation would be
a step backwards regarding training programs. An individual commented
that, for recurrent training, air carriers should determine what
percent of a topic, if any, may be covered though distance learning and
airlines should use a set timeframe for the distance training to be
completed. Several commenters asked that the limitation on distance
learning be withdrawn because it is not supported by any studies or
documentation and is contrary to the ARC recommendations. On the other
hand, TWU commented that distance learning is unnecessary for aircraft
dispatchers who normally live and work where they are based. It stated
that although there is no distance learning requirement for aircraft
dispatchers, such instruction could become an unnecessary safety
loophole.
    RAA commented that each of the instruction areas for which distance
learning is prohibited contains a knowledge element that is appropriate
for distance learning. Midwest specifically objected to the restriction
on using distance learning for dispatcher resource management (DRM)
training and for training on contingency operations for maintaining
operational control in the event of single or multiple system failures.
Midwest recommended that these restrictions be removed and the POI be
allowed to approve the method of training based on its merits.
    In the SNPRM, the FAA is retaining the restriction on distance
learning for specific areas of instruction for aircraft dispatchers.
Due to the unique nature of the aircraft dispatcher's operational
control responsibilities, there is a need to be able to assess and
evaluate a dispatcher's knowledge as well as the dispatcher's ability
to apply that knowledge with direct instructor-student interaction in
the areas designated in the dispatcher QPS. For example, DRM training
is the incorporation of team management concepts in flight operations.
It focuses on the interaction among flightcrew members, flight
attendants, aircraft dispatchers, maintenance personnel, air traffic
controllers, and others. CRM and DRM activities include team building,
information transfer, problem solving, decision making, maintaining
situational awareness, and using automated systems. These team-oriented
goals cannot be accomplished through distance learning. In addition,
the FAA believes that distance learning is inappropriate for training
in contingency operations because in this area of instruction it is
important to conduct a hands-on assessment of the dispatcher's decision
making, workload management, interpersonal skills, application of
company procedures and policies, and situational awareness.
    Permitting the use of distance learning where it is appropriate and
where it would not compromise safety acknowledges the advances made in
training delivery methods. Consistent with FAA policy in FAA Order
8900.1, in the SNPRM the FAA is retaining the 50% limitation on
distance learning for aircraft dispatchers. However, as under current
guidance, the FAA may approve distance learning in excess of 50% if the
certificate holder can establish the effectiveness of the distance
learning. Because distance learning is considered part of the approved
training program, to seek approval of any distance learning, the
certificate holder would follow the procedures for approval and appeal
as set forth in Sec.  121.1337 and Sec.  121.1437. See FAA Order
8900.1, Vol. 3, Ch. 22, Sec. 3, para. 3-1661 (Sept. 13, 2007).

D. Training Program: General--Crewmember Records (Sec. Sec.  121.1331
and 121.1431)

    Current Sec.  121.401 governs the general requirements for part 121
certificate holders' training programs. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed
similar overall requirements but also proposed requirements to ensure
consistency between the operating procedures for each required task in
the QPS and the

operating procedures set forth in the manual required by Sec.  121.133.
The NPRM also proposed to require a certificate holder conducting
training under a part 121 approved training program to train and
evaluate the individuals who administer training or evaluation within
the certificate holder's training program. In addition, the NPRM
proposed to require that records of unsatisfactory results for
flightcrew members include the specific items for which performance was
unsatisfactory.
    Many commenters stated that crewmember performance records, which
contain personally identifiable data, could be subject to public
inquiry and be misused or misinterpreted, creating a potential
liability for the crewmember, the operator, and the FAA. ATA commented
that because the requirement to keep unsatisfactory results was
intended to help monitor the adequacy of training programs, that
objective can be met with de-identified data as is currently done with
AQP. They recommended that an operator be allowed to de-identify such
data after a pilot has satisfactorily completed a curriculum and hold
that data outside of the crew record system.
    The requirements set forth in Sec.  121.1331(f)(1) and Sec.
121.1431(e)(1) are consistent with the requirements in new Sec.
121.684, which would replace current Sec.  121.683. In the SNPRM, the
FAA has retained the provisions that would require that certification
of crewmember and dispatcher knowledge and proficiency be included in
the records required under current Sec.  121.683, in Sec.  121.684. For
flight attendants, the FAA agrees that only records of satisfactory
completion are necessary to determine whether a flight attendant is
qualified. The FAA proposes to remove the requirement that
unsatisfactory performance be included in flight attendant records. The
FAA has amended the SNPRM language accordingly.
    TWU Local 550 and TWU sought clarification regarding what
information the FAA expects to receive when a certificate holder
reports a failed proficiency test, proficiency check, or practical test
for aircraft dispatchers under proposed Sec.  121.1439(f).\10\ They
recommended that the FAA require only empirical data and stated that
personal information is unnecessary. TWU Local 550 suggested that
failures should be reported to the Administrator as a percentage on a
monthly, quarterly, semi-annual, or annual basis. RAA noted that the
section-by-section analysis indicates that the purpose of reporting
failed tests and checks is to ensure that, if repeat failures occur,
the operator would ``correct the program'' as part of the CAP. RAA
acknowledged the usefulness of an operator accounting for such
``failures'' within its CAP but failed to see a valid reason why it is
necessary for the operator to report individual failures to the FAA.
RAA requested that the provision be withdrawn as redundant to the CAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The FAA proposed requirements for reporting unsatisfactory
results for aircraft dispatchers in Sec.  121.1439. Based on
substantive revision of Sec.  121.1439, these requirements are now
set forth in Sec.  121.1431(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The information required by Sec.  121.1431(e)(1) is necessary for
assessing the overall effectiveness of the certificate holder's
training program. It is also necessary for assessing the operational
control capabilities of individual dispatchers and is appropriate
information for a dispatcher's records. The reporting of an
individual's failure would help the FAA to identify whether there is a
problem with an individual who is exercising operational control or
whether there is a problem with the certificate holder's training
program.
    In addition to concerns regarding the confidentiality of crewmember
and dispatcher records, commenters also stated that the requirement for
lesson plan approval is onerous and would hamper the airlines' ability
to update and improve their training in a timely manner.
    In the SNPRM, the FAA proposes to amend Sec. Sec.  121.1331(e)(1)
and 121.1431(d)(1) to clarify that certificate holders must provide
curriculums and curriculum categories as a means of demonstrating that
they have satisfied all of the training and evaluation requirements of
part 121. The FAA intends that, under the proposed regulations, a
certificate holder would submit a training program for approval that
includes these requirements. While the FAA expects that the detailed
course material (e.g., lesson plans and handouts) used to meet this
training requirement would be available for FAA review, the FAA does
not intend certificate holders to submit all course material as part of
training program approval. The FAA has revised the proposed language in
Sec.  121.1337(a)(6) and Sec.  121.1437(a)(4) to state that the
certificate holder must make all training and evaluation materials
available for review upon request by the FAA to clearly reflect this
intent.
    American Eagle noted that, while pilots certainly need to be kept
current on any information affecting the aircraft that they fly, it is
not necessary that pilots be kept informed of changes to an air
carrier's policies and operation that may not be pertinent to their
duties, such as some changes in the air carrier's maintenance program.
It stated that Sec.  121.1331 should be amended to require that pilots
be kept current only on the subject matter that affects their
performance.
    The intent of the regulation was to keep crewmembers current only
on those changes in air carrier policies and procedures that are
pertinent to their duties. The FAA has clarified this requirement in
the SNPRM.
    ATA and Southwest noted that minor changes to policies and
operations may be conveyed in various formats. They contend that,
depending on the criticality and complexity of the change, inclusion in
the curriculum is not always the most effective and timely means of
conveying information and that other appropriate means could include
bulletins and electronic messages.
    The FAA notes that the proposed requirements do not prevent an air
carrier from disseminating information via bulletin. The proposed
requirements merely ensure that the information is included in the
training program, as appropriate. Therefore, the FAA proposes no change
to the language in the SNPRM.
    ATA, American, and Southwest commented that the detail required in
the QPS would unnecessarily expand the manual and a flight attendant's
responsibilities. Southwest stated that the manual is an operations
manual, not always a training manual. Southwest noted that an
operations manual lists what tasks should be done, not necessarily how
to perform each task.
    The FAA notes that the intent of the proposed requirement is to
ensure that the operating procedures in the crewmember manuals and the
training program are consistent. The detail in the operations manual
should be at a level that is appropriate for that document. Therefore,
the FAA proposes no change to the language in the SNPRM.
    Continental commented regarding the requirement that the person
responsible for instructing or evaluating has certified in writing or
electronically that the crewmember is knowledgeable and proficient in
the specific subject, task, or environment. It stated that this
requirement would not accommodate situations where direct access to
computerized recordkeeping systems is not always possible, for example
during outages or at remote locations. It stated that in such cases
someone other than the instructor or evaluator would make the entry. It
noted that a transmittal sheet is used to verify that an entry is

correct no earlier than 48 hours after initial entry and by another
individual. Continental indicated that, once the information is
verified, the transmittal sheet is destroyed. It commented that the
transmittal sheets are subject to FAA inspection within the 48-hour
window. Continental and other commenters suggested that the rule state
that ``the certification required by (f) shall be recorded in the
crewmember's record in a manner approved by the Administrator.''
    Because the suggested change provides the air carrier with the
needed flexibility to use the most efficient system, the FAA has
amended the SNPRM language to include ``by a means approved by the
Administrator.'' However, the FAA notes that the proposal in the SNPRM
merely establishes the records that need to be maintained and does not
impose the type of recordkeeping system that must be used. Therefore,
an air carrier may determine the complexity of its recordkeeping
system.

E. Training Program: Curriculum by Aircraft Type and Curriculum by
Aircraft Type and Operation (Sec. Sec.  121.1333 and 121.1433)

    Under current rules, the requirements for training program
curriculums are found in Sec.  121.403 and Sec.  121.415. The
requirements for special airport qualifications are located in Sec.
121.445.
    In the NPRM, the curriculum requirements were generally similar to
current regulations but some additional requirements were proposed. For
example, the NPRM proposed specific training requirements for
flightcrew members regarding the nature and effects of safety hazards
and periodic weather extremes and their effect on operations. In
addition, the NPRM required certificate holders to integrate CRM and
DRM training into their curriculums. The FAA also proposed to make some
clarifying revisions and to include requirements for additional
training equipment that is used by the air carrier in its training
program.
    Some commenters, including ATA, American, Southwest, Midwest, UPS,
and FedEx stated that the training program requirements in Sec.
121.1333(b)(1)-(6) were impossible because a certificate holder could
not ensure that each crewmember remains trained, proficient, and
knowledgeable in all of those areas. Commenters recommended that the
proposed language be revised to clarify that the certificate holder has
the responsibility to provide training and evaluation to crewmembers
and that satisfactory completion of that training and evaluation
satisfies the certificate holders' responsibility to ensure that the
crewmember possesses adequate knowledge, skills, and proficiency to
accomplish his or her duties.
    In the SNPRM, the FAA has revised the language to clarify that
certificate holders must provide the training and evaluation necessary
to ensure that crewmembers and aircraft dispatchers have demonstrated
proficiency in the areas specified in Sec.  121.1333(b). The FAA has
made similar changes to Sec.  121.1433(b).
    Southwest commented that, under the proposed regulation,
differences training must be included in all academic and job
performance training segments for purposes of training and evaluation.
It stated that differences would not always require job performance
training and recommended that the requirement be revised to clarify
that differences would not necessarily be applied to all job
performance training. The FAA agrees that differences would not
necessarily require job performance training and, in the SNPRM, has
included clarifying language in Sec.  121.1333(c)(5).
    RAA also sought clarification as to what is required for
differences training for aircraft dispatchers. The FAA notes that
differences training and evaluation, when discussed as a curriculum
category, requires additional training and evaluation on a particular
aircraft type when the Administrator finds, during the training program
approval process, that the training and evaluation is necessary before
that aircraft dispatcher may serve in the same capacity on a particular
variation within a series of an aircraft type or a different series
within an aircraft type.
    An individual commented that the language in Sec.  121.1333(b)(3)
suggests that there is an alternative to an FCOM. There is no
alternative to an FCOM and the FAA has removed the language from (b)(3)
to clarify the requirement.
    An individual requested clarification regarding what is meant by
abnormal, non-normal, and emergency procedures as referenced in Sec.
121.1333(c)(3). The FAA notes that these terms, as presently used in
Sec.  121.403, retain their current meaning in Sec.  121.1333.
    TWU commented that the requirements set forth in proposed Sec.
121.1433(b)(2) through (b)(4) that would require an aircraft dispatcher
to remain knowledgeable of the information contained in multiple
manuals as well as the newly required Aircraft Dispatcher's Procedures
Manual, are too burdensome and would result in increased time demands
and undue pressure. The FAA notes that the requirement for a dispatcher
to remain knowledgeable of the information contained in multiple
manuals is no different from current regulatory requirements.
Dispatchers are not required to know every single item in a set of
manuals; however, they should know the contents of a manual so that
they may easily reference the correct manual when specific information
is needed.

F. Training Program: Administering Training and Evaluation (Sec. Sec.
121.1341 and 121.1439)

    Sections 121.411(a)(1)-(2) and 121.412(a)(1)-(2) require that
proficiency checks for training and evaluation must be given by the
Administrator or a check airman. In the NPRM, the FAA provided further
clarification regarding who may be authorized to conduct training and
evaluation and supervise individuals undergoing operating experience,
by affiliation and position, including those persons beyond the current
authorizations listed in Sec. Sec.  121.411 and 121.412. This
information now appears in the SNPRM in Table 3C of appendix Q.
    Upon further review, the FAA noted that Sec.  121.1341 and Sec.
121.1439 contained many requirements that were addressed in more detail
in other areas of the proposal. The FAA has removed the duplicate
requirements and these sections now address requirements for
individuals administering training or evaluation and the unauthorized
use of equipment and facilities in training programs. The FAA has
clarified that individuals responsible for conducting training and
evaluation must be familiar with the facilities and equipment specified
in the certificate holder's approved training program.
    With regard to the proposed requirement that persons providing
training must be familiar with the facilities and only use the
facilities specified in the training program to administer training and
evaluation, Ameristar Air Cargo (Ameristar) commented that the term
``facilities'' is limited and does not recognize that academic training
can be accomplished anywhere there is a computer, provided the
individual is aware of how to complete the training.
    The FAA did not intend to limit an air carrier's flexibility
regarding the instructional design of, and delivery methods for, its
training program. Because these sections address the delivery of both
academic and job performance training and evaluation, the broad
reference to ``facilities, equipment, and procedures'' is

necessary. To clarify, the FAA has revised the language in the SNPRM by
adding the phrase, ``as appropriate.''
    American commented that the requirement to list the names of all
approved instructors and check persons in the QPS is burdensome due to
the changing nature of that population on a regular basis. Commenters
suggested language that training and evaluation activities must be
administered by the persons listed in the certificate holder's approved
recordkeeping system.
    The NPRM did not require certificate holders to list the names of
all approved instructors and check persons in the QPS. As proposed,
Sec.  121.1341 and Sec.  121.1439 merely direct that training and
evaluation may be administered only by the persons who are current and
qualified in the positions set forth in the applicable tables in the
QPS. The QPSs specify the positions eligible to be authorized to
administer training, evaluation, and observation activities under
subparts BB and CC for the part 119 certificate holder. The FAA notes,
however, that other provisions in subparts BB and CC, such as
Sec. Sec.  121.1321 and 121.1323, require certificate holders to submit
the names of persons who would be administering training and evaluation
for acceptance by the FAA. This facilitates effective FAA surveillance
of an air carrier's training program.
    American also asked for clarification regarding the proposed
provision that would deny credit for any training or evaluation
conducted by an unqualified individual or conducted without the use of
approved facilities or equipment. The FAA clarifies that if an
individual completes a training or evaluation activity, the FAA would
not consider the activity to be completed if the certificate holder
used facilities, equipment, or materials that were not specifically
approved for that activity as part of the certificate holder's approved
training program, or if the certificate holder used unauthorized or
unqualified persons to administer the activity. The FAA believes that
this provision is essential to ensure that training and evaluation are
conducted in compliance with the requirements of subparts BB and CC.
This proposal is necessary to prevent an unsafe condition from
occurring as a result of unqualified persons serving as crewmembers in
job performance training and evaluation.
    With regard to Sec.  121.1439, RAA commented that there is no
guidance as to who or what qualifies as an acceptable trainer or
facility. It contends that such requirements are completely arbitrary
without further specification. RAA requested that the FAA remove
subparagraphs (a), (b), and (c), which would require the persons
administering training to be acceptable to the FAA, persons who conduct
evaluations for the certificate holder to be approved by the FAA, and
for persons administering training or evaluation to use only the
equipment and the facilities that are specifically approved for the
certificate holder's training program.
    Specific eligibility, qualification and training requirements for
individuals who are authorized to administer training and evaluation
are found in Sec. Sec.  121.1251, 1253, 121.1255, 121.1257, 121.1271,
121.1281, 121.1291, 121.1321, 121.1323, 121.1337, 121.1379, 121.1381,
121.1383, 121.1385, 121.1387, 121.1421, and 121.1423. The specific
requirements for training environments and equipment are found in
Sec. Sec.  121.1347, 121.1351, as well as each QPS, as applicable.
These requirements establish unambiguous criteria for instructors,
evaluators, training environments and training equipment that determine
what the FAA requires for an individual or facility. These requirements
are necessary to ensure that training is conducted by qualified
individuals in an effective training environment, using equipment that
results in adequate instruction and evaluation. In the SNPRM, the FAA
has retained the language as originally proposed in the NPRM.

G. Continuous Analysis Process (CAP) (Sec. Sec.  121.1355 and 121.1441)

    The current rules do not require a CAP for crewmember or dispatcher
training. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed Sec. Sec.  121.1355 and
121.1441 as new requirements based on existing Sec.  121.373, which
addresses continuing analysis and surveillance for maintenance
programs. As proposed in the NPRM, the CAP would ensure that
certificate holders identify and correct deficiencies in their training
programs. The NPRM proposed notification and appeal procedures to
ensure that any changes to the CAP were approved by the FAA. These
procedures were consistent with the training approval and amendment
process for crewmember and aircraft dispatchers.
    RAA and ATA commented that the CAP provisions should not be adopted
unless the FAA provides more detailed requirements and develops
guidance to explain how the CAP would be administered, including how
operators would receive approval for their CAP. Continental, Ameristar,
Midwest, American, and ATA commented that the CAP must be customized to
the air carrier's individual needs.
    The intent of the proposed CAP requirements in the NPRM was to
ensure that each certificate holder had a process in place to identify
and correct deficiencies in its training programs. In light of these
comments and the mandate to establish a remedial training program for
flightcrew members in Public Law 111-216, the FAA has revised this
process to include more detailed requirements to ensure that all
crewmembers are monitored throughout their training and evaluation, and
that any deficiencies in crewmember performance, or operation of the
training program, are identified and corrected. See Public Law 111-216,
Sec.  208(a)(2). Section 121.1355 of the SNPRM specifies that the CAP
must provide for the regular analysis of crewmember performance on
proficiency tests and checks to identify and correct any deficiencies
in either crewmember performance or operation of the training
program(s). For flightcrew members, the CAP also must provide for the
regular analysis of flightcrew member performance in LOFT and FFS
courses of instruction to identify and correct any deficiencies in
either flightcrew member performance or operation of the training
program(s). In addition, in the SNPRM, the FAA has specifically
required that the CAP provide for the monitoring of persons having
completed remedial training or re-evaluation due to the failure of a
proficiency test or check or unsatisfactory performance during a LOFT
or FFS course of instruction, as appropriate. In the SNPRM, the FAA has
also revised Sec.  121.1441 to specifically include review of aircraft
dispatcher performance on proficiency tests in the CAP. As proposed in
the SNPRM, certificate holders would be able to develop a CAP for the
collection and use of data that effectively meets the needs of their
operations. Furthermore, for clarification, the FAA notes that the CAP
is considered part of the approved training program, and therefore, is
subject to the approval and appeal procedures set forth in Sec.
121.1337 and Sec.  121.1437.
    Ameristar questioned whether the proposed requirement that the CAP
ensure that each training program and the standards of qualification
for each duty position are documented would require a certificate
holder to develop a CAP for each duty position. The FAA notes that a
separate CAP for each duty position is not required. Rather, the FAA
intended the development of one CAP that contains procedures for

evaluating all of the various components of the training program.
    ATA, Midwest, and American commented that the CAP requirement to
conduct at least two annual standardization meetings to review training
program content, application, and results is not necessary. They
asserted that program content, application, and results should be
accomplished through a data-driven analysis process.
    The FAA has retained the requirement for standardization meetings
because these meetings provide an important opportunity for check
airmen and APDs to become aware of and learn from the review of
training program content, application, and results. However, the
standardization meetings are only one part of the CAP. The CAP also
includes a data driven analysis process that requires certificate
holders to collect and analyze specific data to identify and correct
deficiencies in their training programs.
    ATA stated that the FAA estimate of 8 hours for developing the CAP
and 2 hours annual burden for maintaining the CAP is grossly inadequate
based on average time and administrative expense that certificate
holders who currently train under AQP have incurred in developing
effective data collection and analysis systems.
    The FAA does not intend for the CAP to meet the detailed data
collection requirements for AQP. The cost estimates for the NPRM are
the time estimates to prepare and maintain the actual document that
outlines the certificate holder's CAP for FAA approval as part of the
approved training program in accordance with Sec.  121.1337. These
hours do not account for the time required to implement the program.
For example, the following activities are not included in the FAA's
time estimate: Collecting data; analyzing data; identifying trends; and
identifying recommendations for necessary changes in the training
program to ensure that the training program remains effective. The FAA
believes that such costs are part of the general costs of maintaining
an approved training program and do not arise from the CAP requirement.

H. Fraud, Falsification, or Incorrect Statements (Sec.  121.9)

    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed Sec.  121.9, a new general
requirement for part 121 that would prohibit false or fraudulent
statements on an application, record, or report required by this
subpart. The NPRM also specified the consequences of making a false or
fraudulent statement. Although the language would be added to part 121
for the first time, it is not a new concept in FAA regulations. Similar
language already appears in 14 CFR 67.403. The FAA proposed adding the
requirement to part 121 to emphasize the importance of truthful
statements regarding training and evaluation of crewmembers.
    Continental, RAA, and ATA made similar general comments regarding
the proposed language. They commented that assignment of responsibility
and potential penalties could easily be misinterpreted and that a
description of appropriate allocation of responsibility is missing.
They stated that the FAA should clarify that air carrier responsibility
for fraudulent or intentionally false statements would occur only when
there is evidence that the air carrier approved or endorsed such
actions and that individual employee or contractor actions would not be
automatically attributed to the certificate holder. TWU commented that
the proposed language is too ambiguous and therefore could result in an
unnecessary penalty if a mistake is made. RAA questioned why such
provisions were needed when a violation of any regulation is fully
enforceable with or without making a fraudulent or intentionally false
statement. Continental, ATA, and RAA all requested that the provision
be withdrawn.
    In response to the comments regarding allocation of responsibility,
the FAA states unambiguously that the air carrier has the ultimate
responsibility for regulatory compliance. The FAA notes, however, that
during the investigation that occurs when the FAA has reason to suspect
non-compliance with any regulation, careful consideration is given to
all the facts and circumstances including evidence of air carrier
approval or endorsement of such actions and individual employee or
contractor actions. Furthermore, the FAA emphasizes that fraud,
falsification, and incorrect statements regarding crewmember training
and evaluation could result in a failure to satisfy the minimum
training and evaluation requirements. This directly affects aviation
safety. For the reasons stated above, the FAA is retaining this
requirement, as originally proposed, in the SNPRM.

I. English Language Requirement (Sec. Sec.  121.1209 and 121.1407)

    Current regulations require English language proficiency for
flightcrew members and aircraft dispatchers under 14 CFR parts 61, 63
and 65. See 14 CFR 61.123(b), 61.153(b), 63.31(b), 65.33(c) (2010).
There is no similar provision for flight attendants. In the NPRM, the
FAA proposed an English proficiency requirement for flightcrew members,
flight attendants, and aircraft dispatchers.
    RAA commented that the proposed requirements in Sec. Sec.  121.1209
and 121.1407 were redundant for flightcrew members, as this requirement
is already contained in Sec. Sec.  61.123(b), 61.153(b), and 63.31(b).
It stated Sec.  65.33(c) already contains an English language
requirement for aircraft dispatchers. Several commenters also stated
that this requirement was unnecessary for flight attendants. Atlas Air
and Midwest raised concerns that the English language proficiency
evaluations required under Sec.  121.1209 would place an undue burden
on operators. The National Air Carrier Association (NACA) suggested
that there may be liability issues due to the fact that there appears
to be a difference between the FAA and individual companies regarding
the definition of English proficiency. Also, Horizon, Midwest, American
Eagle, and Ameristar noted that the NPRM contained no standards for
assessing an individual's reading, writing, and speaking skills. Some
of the commenters, including RAA, suggested that successful completion
of the training program conducted in English would qualify as a
demonstration of proficiency. ATA suggested that the FAA add two new
paragraphs to Sec.  121.1209 to codify this method, as well as
acceptance of an airman certificate with an English language
endorsement.
    In the SNPRM, the FAA is retaining the English language
requirements. After considering the comments, however, the FAA is
proposing to add two new paragraphs to Sec. Sec.  121.1209 and 121.1407
to clarify acceptable methods of assessing an individual's proficiency
in reading, writing, speaking, and understanding English. Successful
completion of the certificate holder's approved training program
conducted solely in English would be an acceptable method for
demonstrating English proficiency. This requirement would ensure that
flightcrew members, flight attendants, and aircraft dispatchers have
the ability to communicate with each other and that air carriers have
consistent assessment methods.

J. Crewmember and Dispatcher Record (Sec. Sec.  121.683 and 121.684)

    The current provisions in 14 CFR 121.683 require a certificate
holder to maintain records for each crewmember and aircraft dispatcher
to show that the

individual meets the qualification standards and has satisfied the
training requirements in subparts N, O, and P. However, these
requirements do not conform to the statutory requirements in the Pilot
Records Improvement Act of 1996 (PRIA) (49 U.S.C. 44936(f) and (g)). In
the NPRM, the FAA proposed to revise current Sec.  121.683 to conform
to the statutory requirements in PRIA and to apply similar requirements
for all crewmembers and aircraft dispatchers.
    PRIA (49 U.S.C. 44703(h)) requires that, before allowing a pilot to
begin service, an employing air carrier must request and receive
information concerning that individual, including certain records from
other air carriers that have employed the person as a pilot in the
previous five years. PRIA requires that the former employing air
carrier provide records pertaining to the individual that are
maintained by the air carrier under Sec.  121.683 (other than records
relating to flight time, duty time, or rest time) and other records
pertaining to the individual's performance as a pilot that are
maintained by the air carrier concerning the training, qualifications,
proficiency, or professional competence of the individual, including
comments and evaluations made by a check airman. In the NPRM, the FAA
proposed to revise current Sec.  121.683 to make it consistent with the
records that must be provided by an air carrier under PRIA. In
addition, the NPRM proposed to apply similar requirements to the
records of flight attendants and aircraft dispatchers.
    Several commenters, including American, RAA, Midwest, TWU, and
American Eagle, stated that disciplinary actions do not belong in a
pilot's training records. They were concerned about privacy issues and
stated that instructors and check pilots should not be able to view
those actions. They asserted that the training records should show only
the training and evaluations, whether those events were successfully
accomplished, and if remedial training was conducted, if applicable.
They did not believe it was appropriate to require that records include
instructor comments and reasons for unsatisfactory performance on
tasks.
    The FAA notes that current Sec.  121.683 contains requirements for
maintaining more than just training records. It requires the
maintenance of records concerning the release from employment or
physical or professional disqualification of any flightcrew member or
aircraft dispatcher. Therefore, in the SNPRM the FAA has maintained the
requirements for the maintenance of other than flight training records.
In addition, in the SNPRM under Sec.  121.684, the FAA proposes to
codify current guidance contained in FAA Order 8000.88 that addresses
how the records should be kept. FAA Order 8000.88, PRIA Guidance for
FAA Inspectors (Mar. 14, 2006). In addition, in the SNPRM, the FAA has
clarified in Sec.  121.684(a)(2) that only check person comments are
required to be maintained, which is consistent with the statutory
requirements of PRIA. The FAA has also amended language in Sec.
121.684(b) in the SNPRM to require that all records, except for records
on flight time, duty and rest periods, must be maintained for at least
5 years.

K. Management and Technical Personnel Required for Operations Conducted
Under Part 121 of This Chapter (Sec.  119.65)

    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed a revision to Sec.  119.65, which
requires at least one line qualified check pilot, and, if appropriate,
at least one check flight engineer, for each aircraft make and model
and aircraft type for which the certificate holder has more than five
pilots. Under the proposed rule, a check pilot or check flight engineer
would be able to hold the additional position of Director of Safety,
Director of Operations, or Chief Pilot, if the check pilot or check
flight engineer meets the requirements of the additional position.
    NACA and Midwest are strongly opposed to the change and stated that
the FAA should not make check airmen part of the required management
personnel. Midwest stated that the role of the line check pilot is
ensuring that training has been effective, not managing the training
process. Midwest and ALPA suggested that if the FAA wants to add
personnel responsible for managing training to the required staff at an
airline, the Director or Manager of Training would be a much more
effective choice. Midwest further stated that it, as well as its union,
do not consider line check pilots to be management personnel. It
contends that if the FAA proceeds with this change there would be a
contractual issue that could cause a significant turnover in line check
pilots. Ameristar stated that requiring a check airman would add to the
certification of new entrants and is a redundant requirement because
current Sec.  119.67(b) requires the chief pilot to be type rated on at
least one aircraft type the carrier operates.
    The requirement, as proposed in the NPRM, was intended solely to
ensure adequate staffing for flightcrew member line checks. In
addition, the FAA notes that the language in Sec.  119.65(a) states
that the section applies to both management and technical personnel. As
long as the proposed requirement is met, there is nothing that compels
an airline to confer a particular employment status on an employee. To
clarify that the provision applies to management and technical
personnel, the FAA proposes in the SNPRM to include technical personnel
in the title of Sec.  119.65.
    An individual stated that the FAA should additionally require at
least one qualified check flight attendant for each aircraft type for
which the certificate holder has more than ten flight attendants. The
individual also recommended requiring at least one qualified check
dispatcher for more than four dispatchers.
    As stated previously, the intent of the requirement is solely to
ensure adequate staffing for flightcrew member line checks. Line checks
are not required activities for flight attendants or aircraft
dispatchers; therefore, this suggested change is unnecessary.

L. Applicability (Sec. Sec.  121.1201 and 121.1401)

    In the NPRM, the FAA made some conforming changes to part 135 that
did not impose new requirements on part 135 operators. An individual
commented that the FAA should not require part 135 commuters to comply
with these regulations. The NPRM and the SNPRM do not introduce any new
requirements for part 135 and do not affect part 135 operations except
for those part 135 certificate holders who must train in accordance
with the provisions of part 121. See 14 CFR 135.3(c).
    Atlas Air and NACA both commented that it is unclear as to whether
the duty positions of current check persons would be grandfathered
under the new rule. Atlas Air suggested that the transition of check
persons and evaluators to the new regulatory requirements should be
part of the transition plan that each air carrier must coordinate with
the FAA under Sec.  121.1202(b).
    In the SNPRM, the FAA has added paragraph (c) as a grandfather
provision that allows persons qualified in a training or evaluation
position under the current rules to meet the requirements of the
proposed rule without having to repeat certain training. The FAA has
also clarified in Sec. Sec.  121.1202(b)(2) and 121.1402(b)(2) that
this requirement would become part of an air carrier's transition plan.
Also, the FAA has added designated flight engineer examiners (DFEE) to
the list of check persons.

M. Training Program: Contract Training Requirements (Sec.  121.1339)

    Current regulations that govern training centers that provide
training under contract or other arrangement for air carriers are found
in 14 CFR part 142. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed additional rules
regarding the use of another certificate holder certificated under part
119 or a training center certificated under part 142 to conduct
crewmember training. The NPRM clarified the conditions a certificate
holder must meet in order to use persons from another part 119
certificate holder or a part 142 training center in its training
program. The proposed requirement also ensured that the training is
specific to the certificate holder, even if administered by someone
other than an employee of the part 119 certificate holder. Under the
proposal in the NPRM, all training materials, FSTDs, and other training
equipment would have to meet the requirements of subpart BB, and be
specifically approved for use in the certificate holder's program. In
addition, any instructor or check person must be qualified under
subpart BB and approved by the POI to provide training and evaluation
in the certificate holder's program.
    The NTSB commented that it supports the NPRM's proposals for
establishing qualifications for training centers and other 14 CFR part
119 facilities. Flight Safety International (Flight Safety) commented
that there was inadequate verbiage in Sec.  121.1339, as it does not
specify if part 142 training centers already approved by the FAA
Training Center Program Manager (TCPM) would be considered acceptable
locations for academic training in the classroom or if they must go
through an additional approval process under subpart BB.
    The FAA does not believe it is necessary to add language to Sec.
121.1339 to except part 142 training centers from the requirement that
the certificate holder must have the facilities it proposes to use for
academic training approved. Section 121.1337, Training Program Approval
and Amendment Process, in the NPRM and SNPRM, proposes that each
training program must be approved by the Administrator. To obtain
approval of a training program, a part 119 certificate holder must
provide certain information, including a description of the academic
training facilities to be used. Furthermore, both in the NPRM and
SNPRM, Sec.  121.1335 proposes to require that academic training hours
must be in a classroom provided by the certificate holder unless
otherwise approved by the Administrator. Therefore, academic training
provided in a classroom would be part of the general training program
approval process for the part 119 certificate holder and would not
require a separate approval process for a part 142 training center.
    In addition, in the SNPRM, the FAA has addressed the timeframes for
transition from current rules to proposed rules for certificate holders
who are required to meet the requirements of subparts BB and CC.
Section 121.1202 outlines the process for transitioning from training
programs established in accordance with subparts N, O, and P of this
part to the training program requirements provided in subparts BB and
CC of this part. At the completion of the transition process,
certificate holders must meet the requirements of subparts BB and CC.
Any part 142 training center that is providing contract training for a
part 119 certificate holder must transition to the new requirements of
subpart BB as that part 119 certificate holder transitions to the
requirements of subpart BB.
    Flight Safety also raised concerns that the proposal in the NPRM
dilutes the intent of contractual arrangements allowed between part 121
certificate holders and part 142 training centers and does not
adequately clarify how contractual arrangements are used to meet
certificate holder training requirements. Flight Safety also stated
that the basic intent of the special rule should be to allow
certificate holders to contract with approved part 142 training centers
and use the part 142 qualification of instructors and evaluators to
meet the requirements of the applicable parts of part 121. Flight
Safety further stated that the language used in the proposed rule does
not adequately address the use of simulators through contract training
with part 142 training centers.
    The intent of the proposal in the NPRM was to provide flexibility
for certificate holders by allowing training programs to be
administered by non-employees. It also maintained the integrity of the
training program and ensured that only those persons and equipment
specifically approved for the program would be used. In the SNPRM, the
FAA has revised the language in Sec.  121.1339 to adequately clarify
(1) how contractual arrangements could be used to meet the certificate
holder's training requirements under subpart BB and CC; (2) how part
142 training center instructors and evaluators may be qualified to meet
the requirements of the applicable parts of part 121; and (3) how
simulators may be used through contract training with part 142 training
centers.

N. Curriculum Category Requirements: Check Pilot, Check Flight
Engineer, or Check Flight Attendant Initial, Transition, and Recurrent
Academic Training (Sec.  121.1381)

    Current Sec.  121.413 provides for the initial and transition
training and checking requirements of check airmen (airplane) and check
airmen (simulator).
    The NPRM proposed requirements for initial, transition, and
recurrent academic training for check pilots, check flight engineers,
and check flight attendants. It contains the same requirements in
current Sec.  121.413, which apply to check airmen. The FAA based its
recurrent academic training requirements on current part 121, appendix
H, Advanced Simulation Training Program. The FAA has established these
requirements to ensure that each check person remain proficient in the
knowledge and skills necessary to evaluate crewmembers.
    Continental stated that the proposal appears to conflict with or
omit the semiannual standardization meeting requirements of Sec. Sec.
121.1253(d)(2)(ii)(A) and 121.1355(a)(2). The requirement to attend
standardization meetings is not necessary in this section. Therefore,
there is no conflict with Sec. Sec.  121.1253 and 121.1355. The
standardization meetings are not curriculum category requirements and
therefore are not appropriate to include in Sec.  121.1381. The
proposed requirement to have standardization meeting is in Sec.
121.1355(a)(2), the proposed requirement for check airmen to attend the
meetings is in Sec.  121.1253, and the proposed requirement for APDs to
attend the meetings is in Sec.  121.1271.
    American requested deleting Sec.  121.1381(a)(5)(i), which proposed
to require training in proper evaluation of student performance,
including the detection of improper or insufficient training. Proposed
Sec.  121.1381(a)(5)(i) repeats the current requirement in Sec.
121.413(c)(4)(i). The FAA did not propose changing this requirement and
believes it remains a valid requirement because the instructor's
ability to detect improper or insufficient training helps to ensure the
instructor's proficiency as an instructor. Therefore, the FAA has
retained the requirement in the SNPRM.

O. Training Program: Academic Evaluation (Sec.  121.1343)

    Although there are requirements for academic testing in the current
regulations, there are no requirements for how those academic
evaluations are

to be developed or implemented. In the NPRM and SNPRM, the FAA has
included specific requirements regarding development, maintenance, and
implementation of academic evaluations. ATA and Continental stated that
the proposed assessment rules appear to preclude oral examination,
which the FAA has long recognized as a fundamental assessment
technique. They requested that it be preserved. In the SNPRM, the FAA
has added language in the QPSs to clarify that oral examination is
still appropriate under the proposed requirements.
    RAA stated that it is unclear whether test questions have to be
approved by the FAA for every class based on the proposed QPS
requirement for knowledge assessment that states that ``the form and
content of each test must be approved by the Administrator.'' RAA noted
that this requirement would be more restrictive than AQP.
    The FAA did not intend that each individual test question and test
be approved by the FAA. Rather, the intent was that the method of
developing and administrating academic tests be approved by the FAA
under the general training program approval process required in Sec.
121.1337. In the SNPRM, the FAA has revised the requirement in Sec.
121.1343 to clarify that it is only necessary to establish a method to
develop written, oral, or electronic tests that is approved by the
Administrator as part of the approved training program.
    ATA, UPS, Midwest, American, RAA, Continental, and FedEx commented
that the proposed requirement for random selection of tests would
require an automated assessment process that would require additional
staff and computer software changes. They contend that such costs were
not mentioned in the regulatory evaluation. They stated that the
requirement is logistically complex and expensive. Horizon and Alaska
commented that their lack of computer testing complicates their ability
to meet the criteria in this rule. The commenters suggested that the
rule be clarified to reference the random selection strategy of
paragraph (d) and to simply state that the use of the random strategy
is sufficient to generate the desired result. FedEx proposed specific
language to address this concern, specifically that the certificate
holder must create tests using the random selection method described in
paragraph (d) so that each student receives a different test each time
the student is tested on an area of instruction.
    In the SNPRM, the FAA has retained the requirement that the
certificate holder create tests using the random selection method.
However, the FAA has removed the language that required the certificate
holder to ensure that each student receives a different test each time
the student is tested on an area of instruction.

P. Training Program: Training Equipment Other Than Flight Simulation
Training Devices (Sec.  121.1351)

    Current regulations do not provide specific requirements for
training equipment other than flight simulation devices except to
require that they are adequate.
    The NPRM established requirements for training equipment, other
than FSTDs, that is used in an approved training program. These
requirements are needed to ensure that all equipment used in training
programs is adequate for the task for which it is to be used. Such
equipment includes portable emergency equipment, aircraft exits, and
equipment for overwater operations. The NPRM also proposed to require
that all training equipment be specifically approved by the
Administrator for the certificate holder, the duty position, and the
procedure involved and that each piece of training equipment replicates
certain characteristics or functions of equipment on the airplane. The
NPRM also proposed to require that a discrepancy log be kept in close
proximity to each piece of training equipment.
    American Eagle, Continental, ATA, American, United and an
individual commented that the requirement for certificate holders to
duplicate equipment furnishings, such as stowage areas and aircraft
compartments, in training centers would add significant cost and
barriers to training and would lead to a significant increase in
training injuries without providing a commensurate level of improved
crewmember training.
    The focus of the requirement is the removal of each piece of
emergency equipment and training device from the same bracket or
securing device that is used on the aircraft prior to being operated by
each flight attendant. In the SNPRM, the FAA has removed the phrase
``as installed in the aircraft, including all equipment and furnishings
that may affect the operation of that equipment.'' The FAA did not
intend for air carriers to replicate stowage areas and aircraft
compartments for use during hands-on job performance drills.
    The Association of Flight Attendants (AFA) supported the language
as proposed but requested clarification regarding the phrase ``force
and travel'' as it pertains to what the equipment must duplicate. AFA
commented that, in order to cover all types of training equipment, the
requirement be revised to read ``The required force, actions, and
travel of the equipment.'' In the SNPRM, the FAA has added the term
``actions'' to the proposed requirement in order to cover all types of
equipment used for training.
    American Eagle, ATA, Continental, Midwest, American, and FedEx all
generally commented that the proposed requirements for recording
discrepancies were too prescriptive and that the proposed language
limited an air carrier's flexibility to determine the most efficient
reporting system for their operation. Commenters suggested alternative
language to require that emergency training equipment must have a
method of documenting discrepancies, such as replacing ``discrepancy
log'' with ``method of documenting discrepancies'' and replacing
``log'' with ``documenting system.'' In the SNPRM, the FAA has revised
the proposed language to be less prescriptive and give air carriers
flexibility to determine the most efficient reporting system for their
operation.
    ATA commented that the proposed requirements should allow training
to continue if equipment is in a degraded state due to minor missing,
malfunctioning, or inoperative components of the equipment. ATA and
Midwest also commented that the proposed requirement was overly broad
and open to interpretation. They stated that as drafted, these
requirements would extend to training equipment such as life vests and
fire extinguishers.
    The purpose of the proposed requirement is to ensure that
crewmembers do not receive training on emergency equipment that does
not replicate the equipment they would use in emergency situations in
aircraft operations, including life vests and fire extinguishers. In
the SNPRM, the FAA continues to prohibit the use of training equipment
with a missing, malfunctioning, or inoperative component to meet
crewmember training or evaluation requirements for tasks that require
the use of the correctly operating equipment. In the SNPRM, the FAA
continues to extend the requirement to all training equipment.
    Midwest commented that drills that are accomplished in a cabin
trainer include group exercises involving passenger control, adverse
conditions, and other scenarios. It stated that the skills exercised in
these drills are not airplane type specific and can be

accomplished in any ``type'' of cabin trainer.
    The goals and objectives of much of the scenario-based training and
group exercises, such as passenger control, briefings, cabin
preparation, CRM, and communication and coordination, can be
accomplished in a general cabin trainer or classroom. The proposed
requirements in this section apply to training equipment used to
accomplish job performance requirements where replication of the actual
equipment used in operations is key to the learning objectives of the
drill.

Q. Curriculum Category Requirements: Crewmember New Hire (Sec.
121.1363)

    Current Sec.  121.415 requires that a training program must provide
a Basic indoctrination ground training for newly hired crewmembers or
aircraft dispatchers including 40 programmed hours of instruction,
unless reduced under Sec.  121.405 or as specified in Sec.  121.401(d).
    The NPRM proposed requirements for new hire training for pilots,
flight engineers, and flight attendants. The NPRM required new hire
training for crewmembers qualifying for the first time for the
certificate holder and for flight attendants who were required to
complete phase III requalification training, which includes new hire
training. AFA recommended listing the required hours in the regulation
to clear up any ambiguity and possible misinterpretation of the hours
required for training proficiency.
    Programmed hours are set forth in the QPS, which is regulatory and
must be considered in conjunction with the rule sections in subparts BB
and CC. The FAA has determined that the language in the NPRM was
appropriate and is maintaining the language in the SNPRM.
    Ameristar recommended citing the exact QPS appendix letter in the
wording of Sec.  121.1363(b)(1). When referring to multiple training
populations, the FAA has used ``applicable QPS requirements.'' The FAA
has determined that the language in the NPRM was appropriate and is
maintaining the language in the SNPRM.
    ATA, American, FedEx, and UPS commented that new hire training
should only be a one-time event whether an individual is a pilot or a
flight engineer. The commenters recommended using a general term
``flightcrew member new hire'' instead of ``pilot new hire'' and
``flight engineer new hire.''
    In the SNPRM the FAA has retained the term ``crewmember new hire''
because this term is applicable to all crewmembers. The FAA recognizes
that once a flight engineer receives new hire training at a certificate
holder the flight engineer would not need to receive new hire training
again if he or she became a pilot for the same certificate holder.

R. Initial Cadre for Crewmembers and Aircraft Dispatchers (Sec. Sec.
121.1257, 121.1323, and 121.1425)

1. Check Airman Initial Cadre (Sec.  121.1257)
    For new certificate holders initiating service, and existing
certificate holders adding new airplane types to their operation, it is
necessary to establish a check airman program to conduct training and
evaluation. In order to establish a check airman program, initial cadre
check airmen are first required. Initial cadre check airman candidates
must first become fully qualified as flightcrew members and then be
trained, evaluated, and approved as check airmen. Current provisions in
subpart N do not address a training process for initial cadre check
airmen. Rather, a recommended process is set forth in FAA Order 8900.1,
Vol. 3, Ch. 20, para. 3-1427 (Sept. 13, 2007). The FAA proposed to
codify this process in the NPRM.
    ATA, Continental, American, Midwest, and FedEx requested the FAA
reconsider regulating initial cadre programs. Commenters stated that
current policy in FAA Order 8900.1 on initial cadre training and
evaluation is adequate and has proven safe. Commenters stated that
maintaining this guidance provides the necessary flexibility to develop
appropriate training and qualification as the need arises.
    The FAA believes that the importance of the initial cadre period,
when certain air carrier employees may provide training and evaluation
without meeting certain qualification requirements, requires
standardization in the regulations and is not appropriate for guidance.
The SNPRM, like the NPRM, proposes to codify FAA policy in the FAA
Order 8900.1, Vol. 3, Ch. 20, sect. 2, para. 3-1427, ``Approval of
Initial Cadre Check Airmen'' (3/11/09). The initial cadre program is a
practical way to initiate and build a check airmen program, and it
takes advantage of proving flights when the operator or applicant is
under close FAA scrutiny.
    ATA, FedEx, and American recommended clarification of the
requirements in Sec.  121.1257(b)(1), which requires that the person be
employed by the certificate holder, and Sec.  121.1257(e), which
describes the individuals who may be used as instructors, check pilots,
and APDs by the certificate holder to train the initial cadre of check
airmen described under paragraph (b). The commenters believe these
requirements are in conflict. Commenters also recommended that the FAA
revise paragraph (b)(1) to require that the initial cadre check airmen
be employed by the part 119 certificate holder or comply with Sec.
121.1257(e).
    In the SNPRM, the FAA has clarified the relationship between
individuals who may be trained as the initial cadre of check airmen for
a certificate holder in paragraph (b), and the individuals in paragraph
(d) who may be used as instructors, check pilots, and APDs by the
certificate holder to train the initial cadre of check airmen described
under paragraph (b). Paragraph (d) allows the certificate holder to use
current employees, employees of part 142 certificate holders, employees
of other part 119 certificate holders, or aircraft manufacturers to
create the pool of instructors, check pilots, and APDs who would
support the certificate holders initial cadre program and train the
initial cadre check airmen.
    ATA, American, Midwest, and Continental believe that in Sec.
121.1257(b)(4) the last sentence should be deleted because this section
could be misconstrued to require an initial cadre check pilot or check
pilot to accomplish the entire syllabus twice, once in each seat. They
stated this would conflict with the seat dependant task training in the
QPS as specified in Sec.  121.1383(c)(3).
    The intent of Sec.  121.1257(b)(4) is not to require initial cadre
check pilots to accomplish the entire syllabus twice, once in each
seat. In the SNPRM, the FAA has revised Sec.  121.1357(b)(4) to clarify
that initial cadre check pilots need to complete seat dependent task
training.
    ATA, American, FedEx, and Midwest believe that the requirement in
(b)(5) for the FAA to observe each of the duties that the check airman
would be authorized to perform is excessive and should be replaced with
(b)(6), which requires POI approval for the duties to be performed.
    While approval for an individual to serve as a check airman under
proposed Sec.  121.1253 requires signoff by an FAA aviation safety
inspector or APD, in the case of initial cadre training and evaluation,
it is necessary for the FAA to have the FAA aviation safety inspector
conduct the observation and provide the signoff because, in an initial
cadre situation, the certificate holder would not have an APD. This
requirement is also in accordance with FAA policy in FAA Order 8900.1,
Vol.

3, Ch. 20, sect. 2, para. 3-1427 (3/11/09). Therefore, in the SNPRM the
FAA has not revised the requirement.
2. Check Flight Attendant Initial Cadre (Sec.  121.1323)
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to establish requirements for
qualifying an initial cadre of check flight attendants when a
certificate holder is unable to meet the requirements of Sec.
121.1321. The proposed section is necessary to standardize industry
practice for qualifying an initial cadre of check flight attendants.
    ATA, Midwest, American, and American Eagle commented that the NPRM
does not require an FAA aviation safety inspector observing a potential
initial cadre check flight attendant to have any experience in the
aircraft group or type or be qualified in the certificate holder's
procedures. Southwest and ATA stated that the FAA aviation safety
inspectors must be required to meet the same qualifications as the
flight attendants they are inspecting.
    The aviation safety inspectors (cabin safety) who are assigned to
observe a certificate holder's initial cadre check flight attendants
possess the required knowledge regarding the regulations, the air
carrier's approved training program, and the air carrier's operating
procedures to adequately perform the observation. Provisions regarding
the training requirements of FAA aviation safety inspectors are not
appropriate for this rulemaking.
    American and Southwest commented that the NPRM sets forth no appeal
process to contest a termination of an individual's initial cadre
status. In the SNPRM, some sections in the rule language regarding FAA
approval, such as training program approval, contain a formal appeal
process. In the case of determinations regarding the length of time
that initial cadre status is conferred on a particular operator, the
certificate holder may appeal the determination through the CSI. As
discussed previously, this is the process for appealing any FAA
regulations administered by AVS that permit the exercise of FAA
discretion.
    In the NPRM, the FAA set forth a requirement that each individual
check flight attendant would require approval by the FAA. American
stated that, if initial cadres of check flight attendants are required
with the implementation of these regulations, certificate holders
should be allowed to develop check flight attendant programs that are
approved by the FAA but not supervised by the FAA. American, Southwest,
and ATA stated that FAA oversight of an initial cadre of check flight
attendants introduces a significant burden on the FAA and may prevent
the certificate holder from selecting and qualifying employees. They
contend that the certificate holder should maintain the responsibility
of ensuring the qualification of check flight attendants through
personnel selection and training and that the FAA should be responsible
for approving and observing the check flight attendant training
program. Southwest, American, ATA, and Midwest stated that the FAA
oversight of the check flight attendant program should be accomplished
through training program approval and continuous analysis rather than
personnel approval.
    In the SNPRM, the FAA has removed the requirement for approval of
individual check flight attendants. Instead, the FAA is proposing to
require only that the certificate holder maintain a current list of all
initial cadre check flight attendants and submit that list to the FAA.
FAA observation of the newly trained check flight attendants is only
necessary for initial cadre. An existing certificate holder would be
able to meet the qualification requirements of Sec.  121.1321, which
allows observation by another check flight attendant and does not
require any additional FAA approval.
    Southwest commented that certificate holders with established check
flight attendant programs do not need an initial cadre designation when
adding a new aircraft type. It commented that as long as check flight
attendants have received training on the new aircraft type, there is no
need for an initial cadre of check flight attendants. It contends that
flight attendant duties and check flight attendant duties do not vary
by aircraft type in the same way that pilot and flight engineer duties
do.
    The initial cadre requirements for check flight attendants are
necessary only when a check flight attendant candidate does not meet
the eligibility for training requirements of Sec.  121.1321, which
include a requirement to have served as a flight attendant for the
certificate holder for at least the previous 180 days. Therefore, an
air carrier would not need to use the initial cadre provisions when
adding a new aircraft type as long as it uses check flight attendants
who have worked for the air carrier for at least the previous 180 days.
    RAA stated the proposed rule stipulates that a flight attendant
with experience on an aircraft of the same group is to perform duties
as an initial cadre check flight attendant. RAA stated that this would
prevent an experienced flight attendant at an air carrier with
turboprop aircraft from serving as a check flight attendant should the
carrier acquire turbojet airplanes. It requested that the phrase ``of
the same group'' be withdrawn.
    In the SNPRM, the FAA has withdrawn the phrase ``of the same
group'' and has established a more appropriate requirement that flight
attendants must have previously served 3 of the last 6 years in part
121 operations to serve as a check flight attendant in these
situations. The FAA reiterates that the initial cadre requirements for
check flight attendants are necessary only when a check flight
attendant candidate does not meet the eligibility for training
requirements of Sec.  121.1321.
    American Eagle sought clarification as to whether the term ``FAA
Inspector'' is the same as the term aviation safety inspector in Table
3A. In the SNPRM, the FAA has revised the proposed regulation to
include the term aviation safety inspector.
3. Check Dispatcher Initial Cadre (Sec.  121.1425)
    In the NPRM, the FAA also proposed to establish requirements for
qualifying an initial cadre of check aircraft dispatchers when a
certificate holder is unable to meet the eligibility, training,
evaluation, and supervised operating experience requirements of Sec.
121.1417 and Sec.  121.1421. The proposed section was necessary to
standardize industry practice for qualifying an initial cadre of check
aircraft dispatchers.
    TWU recommended that the FAA revise the language in Sec.  121.1417
and Sec.  121.1421 to clarify that the requirements apply only to
``start-up'' airlines or operations. The requirements for the check
dispatchers under Sec.  121.1417 and Sec.  121.1421 apply to all
operations. Relief for start up airlines or a new type of operation for
an existing air carrier is provided under Sec.  121.1425, Check
dispatcher: Initial cadre. The initial cadre requirements for check
dispatchers are necessary only when a check dispatcher candidate does
not meet the eligibility and training requirements of Sec. Sec.
121.1417 and 121.1421. Therefore, the FAA has not revised the language
in these sections.
    NACA questioned the requirement in Sec.  121.1425(c)(2) that would
require an individual attempting to qualify as an initial cadre check
dispatcher to have served as an aircraft dispatcher for 3 of the last 6
years with that aircraft type. NACA maintains that this requirement is
inconsistent with the requirements in Sec.  121.1421 for check
dispatchers which does not establish an aircraft type

limitation for qualification as a check dispatcher. NACA therefore
recommended deleting the aircraft type limitation in Sec.
121.1425(c)(2). Midwest also raised concerns that if adopted as
proposed, dispatchers attempting to qualify as an initial cadre check
dispatcher who work for an operator that has a new type of aircraft
would not be able to meet this requirement. Midwest recommended
removing the aircraft type requirement and requiring the individual to
have served at least 3 of the last 6 years as a certificated dispatcher
performing dispatch duty.
    In the SNPRM, the FAA is revising Sec.  121.1425(c)(2) to remove
the requirement that a dispatcher have experience in the aircraft type
and instead require that, to be eligible to be an initial cadre check
dispatcher, a dispatcher must have served at least 3 years in the past
5 years as a dispatcher in the same aircraft group. The aircraft group
limitation is necessary because individuals attempting to qualify as an
initial cadre aircraft dispatcher may not have recent experience
serving as an aircraft dispatcher with that certificate holder. Instead
of establishing a recency requirement, the FAA has determined that it
is more appropriate to establish the aircraft group limitation given
the difference in aircraft performance, operational requirements, and
the overall operating environments for Group I and Group II airplanes.
This would ensure that the initial cadre check dispatcher is familiar
with the certificate holder's operating environment, while also
accommodating the needs of new part 119 certificate holders and
certificate holders that are planning to operate a new aircraft type or
in a new type of operation. Upon review of Sec.  121.1421, the FAA
identified an error in the recency experience requirements as proposed
in the NPRM. The FAA has revised Sec.  121.1421 to require check
dispatchers to have served at least 3 years in the past 5 years as a
dispatcher for the certificate holder for whom the dispatcher is to
perform the duties of a check dispatcher.
    Midwest commented that the requirement that a dispatcher hold a
certificate without restriction is unclear as they are unaware of any
restrictions on dispatcher certificates. Prior to 1996 (when 14 CFR
part 65 was revised) some aircraft dispatcher certificates were issued
with English language limitations to individuals with foreign
residency. If these individuals sought employment in the United States,
this restriction would have to be removed prior to their employment. As
these certificates do not expire, it is necessary to retain this
language in the SNPRM.

V. Other Issues by Specialty

A. Flightcrew Member

1. Training Program: Line Oriented Flight Training (LOFT) and Full
Flight Simulator (FFS) Course of Instruction (Sec.  121.1353)
    Current Sec.  121.409(b) addresses training courses using airplane
simulators. The requirements proposed in the NPRM were based on Sec.
121.409(b), Sec.  121.441(a) and requirements in appendix H to part
121. The NPRM proposed to consolidate into one section the various
requirements related to LOFT, to provide more specific requirements
regarding the use of simulators, including qualification LOFT,
recurrent LOFT, and FSTD course of instruction. These requirements
promote a training environment that closely resembles actual line
operations.
    Current Sec.  121.409(b)(3) requires a complete flight crew. In the
NPRM, the FAA proposed in Sec.  121.1353(a)(4) to require that the
flight crew consist of crewmembers who are qualified or in student
status to serve in the duty position.
    Several commenters raised concerns that the FAA's proposal to
require a full flight crew would not allow flexibility. They stated
that without such flexibility, if an individual is unable to report for
training, the certificate holder would have to cancel the training and
incur additional costs associated with rescheduling the session, such
as transportation and lodging costs for the crew. In addition, ATA,
American, Continental, FedEx, and Midwest requested the FAA allow ``a
person who is task familiar'' and a ``student in training'' to be a
substitute for a crewmember who is qualified or in student status to
serve in the duty position.
    In the SNPRM, the FAA has revised the language in Sec.  121.1353 to
reference a complete flight crew as described in Sec.  121.1221(d). In
addition, the FAA broadened the language in Sec.  121.1221 to allow
``another individual qualified to occupy that seat'' to be part of the
complete flight crew. For a more detailed discussion of the change to
``complete flight crew,'' see Section V.A.13. Flightcrew member:
Training and evaluation (Sec.  121.1221 and Sec.  121.1335) later in
the preamble.
    Continental requested clarification regarding the intent of the
proposed LOFT requirements as they apply to qualification and recurrent
LOFT. The FAA has clarified that the LOFT requirements are the same for
recurrent LOFT and qualification LOFT. Under the proposal, a LOFT would
require training in an FFS, plus a briefing and debriefing. In
addition, each duty position must be filled by a person who is
qualified or in student status to serve in that position. This proposed
requirement is needed because the training value of LOFT is diminished
when inappropriate crew substitutions are made, such as using an SIC to
substitute for a PIC. The certificate holder selects the tasks to be
performed during the operating cycles from the list provided in Table
3A of the Pilot QPS and Table 3A of the Flight Engineer QPS, if
applicable. Each operating cycle incorporating the tasks should be
structured in such a way to mirror as closely as possible typical line
operations. In this way, the FAA is certain the selected tasks are
appropriate for the certificate holder's operations.
    ATA, American, FedEx, UPS, and Midwest commented that requiring two
operating cycles be completed during each LOFT is not appropriate as it
limits the certificate holders' ability to review data and information
collected in the CAP to identify areas that need additional training
and incorporate those areas during the time remaining in the LOFT.
Furthermore, they stated that a single cycle LOFT should be permitted,
if appropriate and approved, if pilot flying and pilot monitoring
duties are observed. ATA, American, Continental, UPS, and FedEx
recommended removing the proposed requirement in Sec.  121.1353(b)(5)
to demonstrate or practice tasks identified as areas of concern because
this area is covered in the CAP. The FAA continues to believe that two
operating cycles are necessary so that an instructor can fully evaluate
both the pilot flying and pilot monitoring skills of all crewmembers
participating in the LOFT.
    American, Continental, and Atlas stated that proposed Sec.
121.1353(a)(5) should be revised to allow for ``minimal interruption''
of the LOFT by the instructor to allow the correction of errors noted
during training. The commenters stated that this change would be in
accordance with AC 120-35C which includes ``instructor guidance to
prevent scenario degradation to negative learning and reinforcement of
preferred or standardized solutions to problems.''
    The FAA recognizes there are some circumstances where an instructor
might need to interrupt training to give guidance to a student. The FAA
did not intend for this type of ``interruption'' to be prohibited. The
FAA has clarified

this intention by removing the phrase ``the instructor.'' The FAA's
intent was to prohibit interruption of the LOFT scenario itself, which
must be conducted as a line operation. The FAA believes this change is
consistent with the guidance in AC 120-135C and has revised the text to
allow for minimal interruption during both the LOFT and FFS course of
instruction.
    ATA, FedEx, UPS, and Midwest requested that the FAA add APD to the
list of pilots who may conduct a LOFT. The FAA has modified the SNPRM
to allow an APD to administer LOFT because APDs have the appropriate
qualifications to conduct this function.
    ATA, American, and UPS commented that a remedial training program
should be based on the severity and the nature of the deficiency. They
stated that the deficiency might be minor enough that it does not
require an additional simulator session.
    After review, the FAA has determined that it is not necessary to
require a separate LOFT training session for all remedial training. In
the SNPRM, the FAA has removed from Sec.  121.1353(a)(6) and (b)(4) the
proposed requirement for a separate training session for remedial
training. Instead, the FAA has included a requirement that the person
administering the LOFT could correct any deficiencies during the post-
flight debriefing of the flight crew.
2. Flightcrew Member: Operating Experience (Sec.  121.1225)
    The current requirements regarding flightcrew member operating
experience are found in Sec.  121.434. The FAA proposed to recodify the
operating experience requirements in Sec.  121.1225. This provision
established the operating cycle and observation requirements of
operating experience, and also added two new provisions. The new
provisions allow check pilots to have a rest period during the en route
portion of a flight that is more than 8 hours in duration, and allow
credit for operating experience if the pilot or flight engineer was
under the direct supervision of an evaluator.
    Continental and RAA questioned why only an APD or FAA inspector
must observe the operating cycle performed by a pilot after initial or
upgrade training. The commenters suggested allowing an authorized line
check pilot to perform the observation.
    The FAA has revised the requirements in paragraph (b)(2) to require
observation by an APD or FAA inspector only when a pilot is qualifying
as a pilot in command for the certificate holder for the first time.
The FAA recognizes that a qualified check pilot has adequate experience
to conduct observations that occur after the pilot has qualified for
the first time, such as when a pilot is qualifying for a new aircraft
type. The FAA has revised the language to allow a qualified line check
pilot to conduct observations after the initial APD or FAA observation
of the pilot as PIC. This change is consistent with current regulations
in Sec.  121.434, which allow line check pilots to conduct these
subsequent observations.
    Continental, UPS, and Ameristar commented that the requirement to
restart operating experience based on poor performance may result in
pressure to pass a pilot who performs marginally during the last days
of the eligibility period to avoid the cost of restarting operating
experience. The commenters suggested that the pilot be afforded another
opportunity to complete the operating experience or proficiency test
without restarting operating experience in its entirety. They further
commented that a proficiency test should be replaced with proficiency
check because the pilot has already received a type rating, and a
proficiency check would allow for correction of minor deficiencies.
    After further review, in the SNPRM, the FAA has revised the
requirement in Sec.  121.1225(b)(1) to require a proficiency check
instead of a proficiency test to re-initiate operating experience. The
FAA believes a proficiency check would allow for proper evaluation of
all required items, and provide an additional opportunity to identify,
train, and correct minor deficiencies for pilots who would have
marginally passed under the standard proposed in the NPRM. In addition,
throughout the SNPRM, the FAA has removed the term ``proficiency
review'' and replaced it with proficiency check because a proficiency
review is the same as a proficiency check.
    Continental, Midwest, American, and FedEx commented that they do
not agree with the proposed requirement that at least one operating
cycle, flown as the pilot flying, must be conducted with the autopilot
disengaged. In the SNPRM, the FAA has added language to clarify that
this does not require the flight crew to operate contrary to published
or otherwise required departure or arrival procedures. However, the
SNPRM proposes that if at least one cycle is not flown with the
autopilot disengaged after takeoff until departing the terminal area
and prior to approach upon entering the terminal area during the
required operating experience, this fact must be recorded in the
crewmember's record. The FAA proposes to require that at least one of
the cycles flown as the pilot flying must be flown with the autopilot
disengaged during the departure and arrival phases of flight. This
requirement is necessary to measure the pilot's level of proficiency
during these demanding phases of flight.
    ATA, American, FedEx, UPS, Southwest, RAA, and Midwest asserted
that a two-cycle line check is not necessary and that everything may be
accomplished in one cycle. Upon review of the comments, the FAA has
determined that the two-cycle line check is necessary. In order to
reflect actual line operations, during a two-cycle line check, the FAA
expects a pilot to be the ``pilot flying'' on one cycle and the ``pilot
monitoring'' on the other cycle. This would ensure adequate evaluation
of the pilot's flying skills, as well the pilot's monitoring skills.
During a two cycle line check, each pilot has an adequate opportunity
to be the ``pilot flying'' on one cycle and the ``pilot monitoring'' on
the other cycle.
3. Pilot: Consolidation (Sec.  121.1227)
    Current Sec.  121.434(g) and (h) require pilots to acquire at least
100 hours of line operating flight time for consolidation of knowledge
and skills. The requirements proposed in the NPRM were based on Sec.
121.434(g) and (h). In the NPRM, the FAA proposed additional
requirements that the 100 hours of line flight time begin no later than
60 days after, and be completed within 120 days after, the proficiency
test. The FAA also proposed that pilots completing conversion would be
required to undergo consolidation. Furthermore, the NPRM proposed to
extend consolidation to the first recurrent proficiency test and would
require that a pilot restart consolidation if the pilot fails to
complete the 100 hours of line flight time by the time the proficiency
test for recurrent training is complete.
    ATA, FedEx, and American were concerned that the proposal does not
provide for deviation that would provide mitigating relief if new
aircraft enter the fleet, or pilots are relocated to a new domicile and
are then required to become qualified and cannot complete the
consolidation requirements within the 60- to 120-day time frame.
    Rather than providing a deviation for pilots who have not
accumulated 100 hours, the FAA added language to Sec.  121.1227(c)-(e)
to provide for extension of time for completion of consolidation. The
FAA recognizes that there are circumstances where a pilot would not be
able to meet the 120-day period. In the SNPRM, the FAA would permit an
extension of the consolidation

period if the pilot meets additional evaluation requirements. The
proposal permits two extensions of consolidation with additional
evaluation requirements for each extension. The only deviation from
these consolidation requirements is set forth in Sec.  121.1230. This
deviation would allow the Administrator to authorize credit toward
satisfying the consolidation requirements of Sec.  121.1227 for hours
of line flight time accumulated in operations of related aircraft.
4. Pilot Recency of Experience (Sec.  121.1229)
    Under the current rules, in order to maintain recency of
experience, pilots typically complete three takeoffs and landings in an
aircraft simulator. If the visual simulator is a level A simulator, the
pilot must perform additional maneuvers and procedures. Pilots using
level B, C, or D simulators are not required to perform additional
maneuvers and procedures.
    In the SNPRM, as in the NPRM, the FAA has continued the current
requirement for three takeoffs and landings within the preceding 90
days. The SNPRM, as in the NPRM, proposes, to allow pilots to complete
the takeoffs and landings in an aircraft during line operations or in
an aircraft simulator qualified for takeoffs and landings under part
60, with one of the takeoff and landing requirements being conducted in
LOFT environment training. In the SNPRM, the FAA has proposed a
definition of LOFT environment training in Sec.  121.1205, which
clarifies that this training is used primarily for the maintenance or
regaining of landing currency and, therefore, is not required to meet
the time requirements of other LOFT scenarios.
    In addition, in the SNPRM, the FAA has clarified when a pilot is
considered to have lapsed in recency. If it has been 90 days or more
since the pilot has completed the recency requirements of three
takeoffs and landings, then he or she is considered to have lapsed. In
paragraph (b), if a pilot's recency lapses and has been lapsed for 90
days or less, the SNPRM establishes that the pilot may regain recency
only by completing the takeoff and landing requirements in paragraph
(a)(2) in a LOFT environment. Under paragraph (c), pilots whose recency
has been lapsed for more than 90 days would be required to complete the
requirements in paragraph (b) and an FFS course of instruction. The FAA
has revised the text in paragraph (c) to replace core conversion
training with FFS course of instruction to allow certificate holders to
target the critical training needs of the pilot.
    ATA, American, United, Southwest did not agree with the proposal to
require one of the takeoff and landings to be done in a LOFT
environment. Commenters believed the NPRM required a full LOFT to
reestablish pilot recency.
    The FAA recognizes that there was no definition for LOFT
environment in the NPRM. The FAA did not intend to require a full LOFT
to reestablish recency after it had lapsed for 90 days or less. To
clarify the difference between LOFT and LOFT environment, the FAA has
added a definition of LOFT Environment Training in Sec.  121.1205 of
the SNPRM. The definition of LOFT environment is training in an FFS
with a complete flightcrew using procedures expected in line operations
but without the use of simulator resets or repositioning. This training
is used primarily for the maintenance or regaining of landing currency