[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 110 (Thursday, June 10, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31006-31067]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11424]

Vol. 86

Thursday,

No. 110

June 10, 2021

Part II

Department of Transportation

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

Federal Aviation Administration

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

14 CFR Parts 11, 91, and 111

Pilot Records Database; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 86 , No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 /
Rules and Regulations

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 11, 91, and 111

[Docket No.: FAA-2020-0246; Amdt. Nos. 11-65, 91-363, and 111-1]
RIN 2120-AK31

Pilot Records Database

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA adopts final regulations for the use of an electronic
Pilot Records Database (PRD) and implements statutory requirements to
facilitate the sharing of pilot records among air carriers and other
operators in an electronic data system managed by the FAA. This final
rule requires air carriers, specific operators holding out to the
public, entities conducting public aircraft operations, air tour
operators, fractional ownerships, and corporate flight departments to
enter relevant data on individuals employed as pilots into the PRD. In
addition, this rule identifies the air carriers and operators required
to access the PRD to evaluate the available data for each pilot
candidate prior to making a hiring decision.

DATES:
    Effective date: This rule is effective August 9, 2021, except for
the amendments at instruction 7, which is effective October 8, 2021;
instructions 8 and 9, which are effective June 10, 2022; instructions
4, 11, and 12, which are effective September 9, 2024; instruction 13,
which is effective September 8, 2027; and instructions 6, 10, and 14,
which are effective September 10, 2029.
    Compliance dates: For the requirements in Sec.  111.15, compliance
is required by September 8, 2021. Compliance with subpart B of part 111
is required beginning June 10, 2022, except the requirements in Sec.
111.105(b)(1), for which compliance is required beginning December 7,
2021. Compliance with subpart C of part 111 is required beginning June
10, 2022.
    In Sec.  111.255, compliance for reporting historical records that
date on or after January 1, 2015 is required by June 12, 2023.
Compliance for reporting historical records that date before January 1,
2015 is required by September 9, 2024. Concurrent compliance with the
requirements of the Pilot Records Improvement Act will end on September
9, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Morris, 3500 S MacArthur
Blvd., ARB301, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73179; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
    A. Purpose of the Final Rule
    B. Overview of the Final Rule
    C. Summary of Benefits, Costs, and Cost Savings
II. Authority for This Rulemaking
III. Background
    A. Statement of the Problem
    B. History of PRIA and PRD
IV. Comments Regarding General Issues, Applicability, Pilot Privacy,
and the Transition From PRIA
    A. General Support or Opposition
    B. Applicability of the Rule
    C. Pilot Privacy
    D. Transition From PRIA to PRD
V. Section-by-Section Discussion of Regulatory Text
    A. Subpart A--General
    B. Subpart B--Access to and Evaluation of Records
    C. Subpart C--Reporting of Records by Operators
    D. Subpart D--Pilot Access and Responsibilities
    E. Other Amendments
    F. Other Comments
    G. Comments Related to Regulatory Notices and Analyses
VI. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
    A. Regulatory Evaluation
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination
    C. International Trade Impact Assessment
    D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment
    E. Paperwork Reduction Act
    F. International Compatibility and Cooperation
    G. Environmental Analysis
    H. Privacy Analysis
VII. Executive Order Determinations
    A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    C. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation
VIII. How To Obtain Additional Information
    A. Rulemaking Documents
    B. Comments Submitted to the Docket
    C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms Used Frequently in This Document

AC--Advisory Circular
ARC--Aviation Rulemaking Committee
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
FOIA--Freedom of Information Act
InFO--Information for Operators
NDR--National Driver Register
NPRM--Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NTSB--National Transportation Safety Board
PAC--Public Aircraft Operations, Air Tour Operators, Corporate
Flight Departments
PAO--Public Aircraft Operations
PAR--PRD Airman Record
PRD--Pilot Records Database
PRIA--Pilot Records Improvement Act

I. Executive Summary

A. Purpose of the Final Rule

    This final rule amends Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR) by adding new part 111, Pilot Records Database (PRD). This
final rule facilitates the transition from the information-sharing
requirements of the Pilot Records Improvement Act (PRIA) \1\ to an FAA-
established electronic database, as required by the PRD Act.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Public Law 104-264 section 502; 110 Stat. 3259. The
requirements of PRIA were initially codified at 49 U.S.C. 44936,
which became effective on February 7, 1997. Substantive amendments
were made to PRIA on December 5, 1997 (Pub. L. 105-142; 111 Stat.
2650) and April 5, 2000 (Pub. L. 106-181; 114 Stat. 61). Currently,
the requirements of PRIA are codified at 49 U.S.C. 44703(h) and (j).
    \2\ 49 U.S.C. 44703(i) (Pub. L. 111-216, 124 Stat. 2348 (Aug. 1,
2020)). Referred to as ``the PRD Act'' for the remainder of this
preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This final rule modernizes pilot record-sharing as it occurs
currently under PRIA. The PRD will serve as a repository for pilot
records and will contain records from a pilot's current and former
employers, as well as the FAA. The FAA envisions that the PRD not only
will be an indicator of pilots' abilities or deficiencies, but also
that it will prompt conversations between applicants and hiring
employers. PRD is intended to help ensure that no records about a
pilot's performance with previous employers that could influence a
future employer's decision go unidentified.

B. Overview of the Final Rule

    This final rule requires all 14 CFR part 119 certificate holders,
fractional ownership programs, persons holding a letter of
authorization (LOA) to conduct air tour operations in accordance with
Sec.  91.147, persons conducting certain operations under part 91 or
part 125 (referenced as ``corporate flight departments'' or ``corporate
operators'' in this preamble),\3\ and governmental entities conducting
public aircraft operations (PAO) to report records to the pilot records
database in new 14 CFR part 111. This rule uses the term ``reporting
entity'' when referencing such requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The FAA uses the term corporate flight departments to
reference operators of two or more aircraft conducting operations in
furtherance of or incidental to a business, solely pursuant to the
general operating and flight rules in part 91 or operating aircraft
pursuant to a Letter of Deviation Authority issued under Sec.
125.3. This criteria is provided in Sec.  111.1(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Part 119 certificate holders, fractional ownership programs and
persons conducting air tour operations must review records prior to
allowing an individual to begin service as a pilot. This rule refers to
the different operators

subject to part 111 as ``operators'' generally, but also as ``reviewing
entity'' when referencing these requirements.
    The PRD will contain the required operator and FAA records for the
life of the pilot and will function as a hiring tool that an operator
will use in making decisions regarding pilot employment. Employers
cannot search the PRD indiscriminately, as an operator that wishes to
view records can see a pilot's record only if that pilot has granted
consent to that hiring employer. Pilot consent is time-limited and the
duration is specified by the pilot. The FAA anticipates the PRD will
improve pilot privacy because only specific data elements are required
to be submitted, in contrast to current practice under PRIA, in which
pilot records are exchanged in their entirety. The PRD will indicate
what records exist about a pilot; the operator is responsible for
determining if it is necessary to obtain further information prior to
permitting an individual to begin service as a pilot.
    The Pilot Records Database Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
published on March 30, 2020, and the comment period closed June 29,
2020. The FAA received approximately 800 comments. After careful
consideration of these comments and thoughtful review of the proposal,
the FAA adopts this final rule with certain modifications from the
proposal. These modifications will reduce burdens while achieving the
safety goals Congress intended for the PRD. The modifications will:
     Remove the proposed user fee to access the database for
review of pilot records.
     Update the method of reporting to the PRD for certain
operators without a part 119 certificate. Instead of providing records
contemporaneously for all pilots employed, corporate flight
departments, air tour operations, and public aircraft operations will
be permitted not to upload training, disciplinary, and separation from
employment records to the PRD unless and until requested by a hiring
operator. Certain termination and disciplinary action records must be
reported contemporaneously, however.
     Revise the level of detail required for reporting certain
training and checking; disciplinary action; and separation from
employment events to ensure all relevant records are captured while
reducing subjectivity.
     Amend the compliance schedule, as set forth in the table
below:

                         Table 1--Timeline for Reporting and Reviewing Responsibilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Three years and
      Date          90 Days after      180 Days after      One year after    Two years after     90 days after
                     publication         publication        publication        publication        publication
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event..........  Submit application  Reviewing entities  Begin reporting    Complete           Compliance with
                  for database        use the PRD for     current pilot      historical         PRIA will no
                  access.             the FAA records     records,           record reporting   longer be
                                      review.             historical         for records        available as an
                                                          records; begin     dating on or       alternative to
                                                          reviewing          after January 1,   PRD; full
                                                          operator records   2015.              compliance with
                                                          in the PRD.                           PRD required.
                                                                                Historical
                                                                                record upload
                                                                                complete.
Entity.........  Reporting entities  Reviewing entities  Reporting          Reporting          Reporting
                  and reviewing                           entities and       entities subject   entities,
                  entities.                               reviewing          to Sec.            reviewing
                                                          entities.          111.255.           entities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14 CFR part 111 contains four subparts. Subpart A contains the
general requirements of part 111, including how to submit an
application for database access and other details about user roles
within the PRD. Subpart B provides requirements for operators reviewing
records--in particular, details regarding employer obligations during
the record review process for both the FAA records and records
submitted by an entity reporting records. Subpart C contains provisions
for record reporting, including which records to report and timelines
for reporting records. Subpart D provides requirements and information
regarding pilots' access to the PRD.
1. PRD Access Requirements and Restrictions
    Subpart A of part 111 provides general requirements for use of the
PRD. It includes provisions on applicability, definitions, requirements
for compliance timeframes, database access, fraud and falsification,
and record retention.
    Part 111 applies to each operator holding an air carrier or
operating certificate issued in accordance with part 119 and authorized
to conduct operations under part 121, part 125, or part 135; operators
holding an LOA issued under Sec.  91.147; operators holding management
specifications for a fractional ownership program under subpart K of
part 91; operators conducting operations as a corporate flight
department; entities conducting certain PAO operations; trustees in
bankruptcy of any operator; pilots; and other persons who might access
the PRD. Part 111 does not apply to any foreign air carrier or operator
of U.S. registered aircraft.
    Designated responsible persons under part 111 must apply for access
to the PRD. Such persons will manage records and user accounts, and be
responsible for all actions taken within the PRD for a particular
operator, entity, or trustee. This rule provides a list of the
appropriate management positions that will qualify to serve as a
responsible person for an operator. Consistent with Congress' direction
that the FAA protect the privacy and confidentiality of pilot records
in the PRD, part 111 provides specific requirements for the responsible
person's application that will enable the FAA to evaluate sufficiently
each request for access. The responsible person may delegate his or her
authority to access the database to certain other persons, but
continued access is contingent on the validity of the responsible
person's electronic access.
    The FAA will deny database access to any person for failure to
comply with any of the duties and responsibilities prescribed under
part 111, or as necessary to preserve the security and integrity of the
database. No person may use the database for any purpose except as
expressly authorized under part 111 and no person may share,
distribute, publish, or otherwise release any record accessed in the
database to any person or individual not directly involved in the
hiring decision, unless specifically authorized by law, or unless the
person sharing the record is the subject of the record.
    Lastly, subpart A contains requirements concerning the length of
time that records pertaining to an individual must remain within the
PRD. Such records must remain in the database until either the FAA
receives official notification of a pilot's death or an FAA audit of
the database indicates that 99 years have passed since the date of
birth on record for a particular pilot.
2. Access to and Evaluation of Records
    Under subpart B of part 111, part 119 certificate holders,
fractional ownership programs, air tour operations holding a letter of
authorization under Sec.  91.147,

and trustees in bankruptcy of those entities must review a pilot's
records in the PRD prior to permitting the pilot to begin service as a
required flight crewmember. These operators are ``reviewing entities.''
In order to access and evaluate a pilot's records, a reviewing entity
must receive consent from that pilot.
    As set forth in the PRD Act, each reviewing entity must preserve
the privacy and confidentiality of the records accessed in the database
and the persons accessing the records on behalf of each reviewing
entity are subject to all terms of access set forth in subpart A.
    Reviewing entities must evaluate both the FAA records and records
provided by an operator (reporting entity) subject to this rule. The
FAA records include:
     Records related to current pilot and medical certificate
information, including associated type ratings and information on any
limitations to those certificates and ratings;
     Records maintained by the Administrator concerning any
failed attempt of an individual to pass a practical test required to
obtain a certificate or type rating under 14 CFR part 61;
     Records related to enforcement actions resulting in a
finding by the Administrator that was not subsequently overturned of a
violation of Title 49 of the United States Code or a regulation
prescribed or order issued under that title; and
     Records related to an individual acting as pilot in
command or second in command during an aviation accident or incident.
    Reviewing entities must also evaluate non-FAA records that the FAA
includes in the PRD. Such records consist of an individual's pre-
employment drug and alcohol testing history and other U.S. Department
of Transportation drug and alcohol testing, including verified positive
drug test results, alcohol misuse violations, including confirmed
alcohol results of 0.04 or greater, and refusals to submit to drug or
alcohol testing. Reviewing entities must begin using the PRD to
evaluate the FAA records December 7, 2021.
    Each reviewing entity must also evaluate any records submitted to
the PRD by a reporting entity and must begin evaluating these records
in the PRD on June 10, 2022. Reviewing entities must also evaluate any
records obtained through the National Driver Register (NDR) process
from the chief driver licensing official of a State.
    Due to the possibility that a reporting entity might have
additional records on request, the reviewing entity must compare the
pilot's list of former employers dating back five years and verify that
no discrepancy exists between the pilot-provided employment history and
the records available in the PRD.
3. Reporting of Records
    Subpart C of part 111 requires reporting entities to submit records
for each individual employed as a pilot, including drug and alcohol
testing records under part 120, if applicable; training, qualification,
and proficiency records, as applicable; final disciplinary action
records; records concerning separation of employment; verification of a
motor vehicle driving record search; and historical records. These
records generally must be reported to the PRD contemporaneously, which
for purposes of this preamble means within the time set by the FAA upon
occurrence of the event causing creation of the record, typically 30
days.
    Reporting entities include all reviewing entities, as well as
corporate flight departments and public aircraft operations. Pursuant
to the PRD Act, this rule includes requirements for record reporting by
a trustee appointed by a bankruptcy court for an operator or entity
subject to part 111, subpart C. This trustee must comply with all
reporting requirements in part 111.
    Certain records are not subject to required contemporaneous
reporting. Each operator conducting PAO; air tour operations; and
corporate flight departments are not required to report training
qualification and proficiency records, certain final disciplinary
action records, or certain records concerning separation of employment,
unless and until they receive a request from a reviewing entity. If,
however, the record memorializes a disciplinary action resulting in
permanent or temporary removal of the pilot from aircraft operations or
separation from employment resulting in termination, the record must be
reported to the PRD contemporaneously. These operators must retain all
records eligible for reporting upon request. If records are not
available at the time of the request from the reviewing entity, these
reporting entities must provide written confirmation to the FAA that no
records are available.
    No reporting entity may report pilot records related to a safety
event that the entity reported as part of the Aviation Safety Action
Program (ASAP) or any other approved Voluntary Safety Reporting
Program.
    If a reporting entity discovers or is informed that previously
reported records contain inaccurate information, that entity must
correct the record within 10 days of knowledge that the record contains
an error. When the reporting entity does not agree that the record
contains an error, it must notify the pilot that the dispute will be
resolved in accordance with the reporting entity's dispute resolution
procedures. Each reporting entity must have a documented process for
investigating and resolving record disputes in a reasonable amount of
time. Once resolved, final disposition of the dispute must be
documented in the PRD.
    Air carriers and operators required to report historical records
must complete submission of historical records generated on or after
January 1, 2015 by June 12, 2023. Historical records preceding January
1, 2015 must be reported by September 9, 2024.
4. Pilot Access and Responsibilities
    Subpart D of part 111 establishes requirements that apply to a
pilot's access to the PRD. Each pilot must submit an application to the
FAA to validate that pilot's identity for access to the PRD. Pilots
provide consent to a reviewing entity to view their records through the
PRD. Access also enables pilots to review their own records in the PRD.
In the event a pilot is not able to meet the identity validation
requirements associated with accessing the PRD, a pilot can receive a
paper copy of his or her records by submitting a form to the FAA.
    Pilots are responsible for designating which reviewing entities are
able to access records for review. Before any operator may access a
pilot's records in the PRD, the pilot must give written consent,
designating the reviewing entity that will be allowed to access that
pilot's records. Pilots must also provide separate written consent for
operators to submit a request to the NDR for the pilot's motor vehicle
driving record.
    Pilots must verify that their employment history is complete and
accurate. In addition, pilots who identify errors or inaccuracies in
their respective PRD records are responsible for reporting the errors
to the PRD. Once the FAA receives a report from the pilot of an error
or inaccuracy, the FAA will designate the record as ``in dispute'' in
the PRD. The record will remain designated as such until the entity
that reported the record either corrects the record or completes the
dispute resolution process.
5. Transition to PRD
    Operators currently comply with PRIA. Continued use of PRIA is
required to support a successful transition to

PRD. By September 9, 2024, the FAA intends to complete the transition
from PRIA to PRD.
    To support the transition, all operators subject to the
applicability of part 111 must submit a responsible person application
not later than September 8, 2021. The FAA will begin working with each
subject operator and entity to facilitate a smooth transition.
Additionally, reviewing entities must use the PRD to review the FAA
records, beginning December 7, 2021.
    Once the PRD begins accepting records on June 10, 2022, reporting
entities must submit any new records generated on or after that date to
the PRD. During this time, reporting entities must continue to respond
to PRIA requests for historical records or, alternatively, report those
historical records directly to the PRD for review. The PRD will display
either a statement indicating a reporting entity has completed
reporting all records for a pilot or a statement that the reviewing
entity needs to submit a PRIA request to the reporting entity for
records. The FAA envisions that as time goes on, records will be pre-
populated in the PRD and any duplicative review of records will phase
out. Duplicative reporting is never required; a reporting entity may
always, beginning on June 10, 2022, upload a record to the PRD instead
of responding to a PRIA request. Reviewing entities must also begin
reviewing records in the PRD on June 10, 2022, while continuing to
comply with PRIA.

C. Summary of Benefits, Costs, and Cost Savings

    This rule promotes aviation safety by facilitating operators'
consideration of pilot skill and performance when making hiring and
personnel management decisions by using the most accurate pilot records
available and by making those records accessible electronically. After
the effective date of the rule, operators will incur costs to report
pilot records to the PRD and to train and register as users of the PRD.
Operators will receive future cost savings once PRIA is phased out. The
FAA will incur costs related to the operations and maintenance of the
PRD.
    Over a 10-year period of analysis (2021-2030), this rule results in
present value net costs (costs less savings) to industry and the FAA of
about $67.0 million or $9.5 million annualized using a seven percent
discount rate. Using a three percent discount rate, this rule results
in present value net costs of about $71.0 million or about $8.3 million
annualized.
    This rule provides recurring annual cost savings to industry
because the PRD would replace PRIA three years and 90 days after the
rule is published. Under PRIA, air carriers, operators, and pilots
complete and mail, fax, or email forms to authorize requests for the
provision of pilots' records. Under the PRD, most of this process will
occur electronically. Over a 10-year period of analysis (2021-2030),
the rule provides present value cost savings to industry of about $21.2
million or $3.0 million annualized using a seven percent discount rate.
Using a three percent discount rate, the present value cost savings to
industry is about $27.4 million or about $3.2 million annualized. After
the discontinuance of PRIA, the annual recurring cost savings will more
than offset the recurring annual costs of the rule.
    The following table summarizes the benefits, costs, and cost
savings of the rule to industry and the FAA.

          Table 2--Summary of Benefits, Costs, and Cost Savings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Benefits
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Promotes aviation safety by facilitating operators'
 consideration of pilot skill and performance when making hiring and
 personnel management decisions.
 Provides faster retrieval of pilot records compared to PRIA.
 Reduces inaccurate information and interpretation compared to
 PRIA.
 Provides easier storage of and access to pilot records than
 PRIA.
 Allows pilots to consent to release and review of records.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Summary of costs and cost savings * ($millions)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      10-Year                         10-Year
                    Category                       present value    Annualized     present value    Annualized
                                                       (7%)            (7%)            (3%)            (3%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs...........................................            88.2            12.6            98.5            11.5
Cost Savings....................................          (21.2)           (3.0)          (27.4)           (3.2)
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Net Costs...................................            67.0             9.5            71.0             8.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Table Notes: Columns may not sum due to rounding. Savings are shown in parentheses to distinguish from costs.
  Estimates are provided at seven and three percent discount rates per Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
  guidance. Industry and FAA costs are higher in the beginning of the period of analysis than industry cost
  savings that occur later in the period of analysis after the discontinuance of PRIA three years and 90 days
  after the rule is published. This results in larger annualized estimates of costs and net costs at a seven
  percent discount rate compared to a three percent discount rate.

II. Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C.). This rulemaking is
promulgated under the general authority described in 49 U.S.C. 106(f),
which establishes the authority of the Administrator to promulgate
regulations and rules, and the specific authority provided by section
203 of the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension
Act of 2010, herein called the PRD Act,\4\ codified at 49 U.S.C.
44703(h)-(k). The PRD Act identifies several rulemaking requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Public Law 111-216, 124 Stat. 2348 (Aug. 1, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The PRD Act requires the Administrator to promulgate regulations to
establish an electronic pilot records database containing records from
the FAA and records maintained by air carriers and other persons that
employ pilots. At a minimum, air carriers and persons employing pilots
must report ``records that are generated by the air carrier or other
person after [August 1, 2010]'' as well as ``records that the air
carrier or other person [was] maintaining, on [August 1, 2010],'' on
any person employed as a pilot. The PRD Act also requires air carriers
to access the database and evaluate any relevant records maintained
therein pertaining to an individual before allowing that individual to
begin service as a pilot.
    The FAA is further required to issue regulations to protect and
secure the personal privacy of any individual

whose records are accessed in the new electronic database; to protect
and secure the confidentiality of those records; and, to prevent
further dissemination of those records once accessed by an air carrier.
The PRD Act also requires the implementing regulations to prescribe a
timetable for the implementation of the PRD as well as a schedule for
expiration of the application of the Pilot Records Improvement Act of
1996.

III. Background

A. Statement of the Problem

    The Pilot Records Improvement Act (PRIA) was enacted in 1997 in
response to a series of accidents attributed to pilot error.\5\ The
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) found that although the
pilots had a history of poor training performance or other indicators
of impaired judgment, their employers had not investigated the pilots'
backgrounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Clarifications to Pilot Records Improvement Act of 1996,
H.R. Rep. 105-372 (Oct. 31, 1997), explained certain clarifying
amendments made to PRIA in Public Law 105-142, 111 Stat. 2650 (Dec.
5, 1997), and listed the following accidents as evidence supporting
the enactment of PRIA: Continental Airlines flight 1713 (November
15, 1987); Trans-Colorado flight 2286 (January 19, 1988); AV Air
flight 3378 (February 19, 1988); Aloha Island Air flight 1712
(October 28, 1989); Scenic Air flight 22 (April 22, 1992); Express
II flight 5719 (December 1, 1993); and American Eagle flight 3379
(December 13, 1994). Each of these operators held a part 119 air
carrier certificate and most of the flights occurred under 14 CFR
part 135, except Continental Airlines flight 1713, which was
operated under 14 CFR part 121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two accidents following the enactment and implementation of PRIA
led the NTSB to make additional findings and recommendations regarding
retention of pilot records; the sharing of information related to pilot
performance among operators; and operators' review of previous
performance records. On July 13, 2003, Air Sunshine Incorporated flight
527 (d/b/a Tropical Aviation Services, Inc.) ditched in the Atlantic
Ocean about 7 nautical miles west-northwest of Treasure Cay Airport
(MYAT), The Bahamas, after an in-flight failure of the right engine.
The flight was conducted under the operating rule of 14 CFR part 135,
as a scheduled international, passenger-commuter flight. Out of nine
total passengers, two passengers died after evacuating the airplane and
five passengers sustained minor injuries. The pilot sustained minor
injuries and the airplane sustained substantial damage. The NTSB
determined that ``the probable cause of the accident was the in-flight
failure of the right engine and the pilot's failure to adequately
manage the airplane's performance after the engine failed.'' \6\ The
NTSB also found that ``the pilot had a history of below-average flight
proficiency, including numerous failed flight tests, before the flight
accident, which contributed to his inability to maintain maximum flight
performance and reach land after the right engine failed.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See NTSB Report AAR-04/03 (Adopted October 13, 2004) at page
47, which can be obtained at http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR0403.pdf.
    \7\ See NTSB Report AAR-04/03 at page 43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the Air Sunshine 527 accident, the NTSB issued
recommendation A-05-01, in which it advised the FAA to require all
``part 121 and 135 air carriers to obtain any notices of disapproval
for flight checks for certificates and ratings for all pilot-applicants
and evaluate this information before making a hiring decision.'' \8\
The NTSB recognized the importance of validating FAA ratings and
certifications, as required by PRIA, but noted that ``additional data
contained in FAA records, including records of flight check failures
and rechecks, would be beneficial for a potential employer to review
and evaluate.'' The NTSB acknowledged that while ``a single notice of
disapproval for a flight check, along with an otherwise successful
record of performance, should not adversely affect a hiring decision,''
a history of ``multiple notices of disapproval for a flight check might
be significant . . . and should be evaluated before a hiring decision
is made.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Letter to Marion C. Blakey Re Safety Recommendation A-05-01
and -02 (Jan. 27, 2005), available at http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/RecLetters/A05_01_02.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 12, 2009, Colgan Air, Inc. flight 3407 (d/b/a
Continental Connection), crashed into a residence in Clarence Center,
New York, about 5 nautical miles northeast of the Buffalo Niagara
International Airport, New York, resulting in the death of all 49
passengers on board and one person on the ground. The flight occurred
under 14 CFR part 121.
    The NTSB determined that ``the probable cause of this accident was
the captain's inappropriate response to activation of the stick shaker,
which led to an aerodynamic stall from which the airplane did not
recover.'' \9\ Contributing factors included: ``(1) the flightcrew's
failure to monitor airspeed in relation to the rising position of the
low-speed cue, (2) the flightcrew's failure to adhere to sterile
cockpit procedures, (3) the captain's failure to effectively manage the
flight, and (4) Colgan Air's inadequate procedures for airspeed
selection and management during approaches in icing conditions.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ NTSB Report AAR-10/01 at 155 (Feb. 2, 2010), available at
http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR1001.pdf.
    \10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional safety issues the NTSB identified included deficiencies
in the air carrier's recordkeeping system and its analysis of the
flightcrew's qualifications and previous performance. Specifically,
Colgan Air's check airman stated that the captain had failed his
initial proficiency check on the Saab 340 on October 15, 2007, received
additional training, and passed his upgrade proficiency check on the
next day; however, the company's electronic records indicated that the
second check was conducted 12 days after the failure. The NTSB deemed
these discrepancies in the captain's training records as noteworthy
because the captain had demonstrated previous training difficulties
during his tenure at Colgan Air.\11\ In addition to this failed check,
the captain failed his practical tests for the instrument rating
(airplane category) on October 1, 1991 and for the commercial pilot
certificate (single-engine land airplane) on May 14, 2002, and required
additional training in three separate training events while a first
officer at Colgan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of its investigation, the NTSB issued recommendation A-
10-019 to recommend that the FAA require all ``part 121, 135, and 91K
operators to provide the training records requested in Safety
Recommendation A-10-17 to hiring employers to fulfill their requirement
under PRIA.'' \12\ Safety Recommendation A-10-017 advises the FAA to
require all ``part 121, 135, and 91K operators to document and retain
electronic and/or paper records of pilot training and checking events
in sufficient detail so that the carrier and its principal operations
inspector can fully assess a pilot's entire training performance.''
\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ NTSB Safety Recommendation A-10-019 in Letter from NTSB
Chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman to FAA Administrator J. Randolph
Babbitt dated Feb. 23, 2010 at 26, available at https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/recletters/A-10-010-034.pdf.
    \13\ NTSB Safety Recommendation A-10-017 in Letter from NTSB
Chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman to FAA Administrator J. Randolph
Babbitt dated Feb. 23, 2010 at 57, available at https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/recletters/A-10-010-034.pdf. By
letter dated February 21, 2014, the NTSB reported that ``pending
implementation of the PRD, including guidance about when comments
are needed in PRD entries, Safety Recommendation A-10-017 remains
classified Open-Acceptable Response.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Colgan Air 3407 final aircraft accident report, the NTSB
noted the issuance of Safety Recommendation A-05-01 as a result of the
Air Sunshine 527 accident. The NTSB indicated its

continued recommendation that airman certification information
concerning previous notices of disapproval should be included in an air
carrier's assessment of the suitability of a pilot-applicant. The NTSB
also indicated that notices of disapproval should be considered safety-
related records that must be included in an air carrier's evaluation of
a pilot's career progression. While recognizing that the FAA had
revised Advisory Circular (AC) 120-68G: The Pilot Records Improvement
Act of 1996 (AC120-68G), (June 21, 2016) to indicate that the hiring
employer may, at its discretion, request a record of an individual's
notices of disapproval for flight checks from the FAA,\14\ the NTSB
advised that a rulemaking would ensure that air carriers are required
to obtain and evaluate notices of disapprovals for pilot-applicants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Advisory Circular--Pilot Records Improvement Act of 1996
(June 21, 2016), available at https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_120-68G.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the Colgan Air 3407 accident, Congress enacted the PRD
Act. The PRD Act required the FAA to establish an electronic pilot
records database and provided for the subsequent sunset of PRIA.
Congress has since enacted the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act
of 2016 (FESSA), which required the FAA to establish the electronic
pilot records database by April 30, 2017.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Public Law 114-190 section 2101 (July 15, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 23, 2019, Atlas Air Inc. (Atlas) flight 3591, a Boeing
767, was destroyed after it descended rapidly from an altitude of about
6,000 ft mean sea level (MSL) and crashed in Trinity Bay, Texas, about
41 miles east-southeast of George Bush Intercontinental/Houston Airport
(IAH), Houston, Texas, resulting in the death of the captain, first
officer, and a nonrevenue pilot riding in the jump seat. Atlas operated
the airplane as a part 121 domestic cargo flight.
    The NTSB determined that the probable cause of this accident was an
inappropriate response by the first officer as the pilot flying to an
inadvertent activation of the go-around mode, which led to his spatial
disorientation and nose-down control inputs that placed the airplane in
a steep descent from which the crew did not recover. Contributing to
the accident, according to the NTSB, were systemic deficiencies in the
aviation industry's selection and performance measurement practices,
which failed to address the first officer's aptitude-related
deficiencies and maladaptive stress response. The NTSB also noted the
FAA's failure to implement the PRD as a contributing factor.
    Consequently, the NTSB issued two new safety recommendations.
Recommendation A-20-34 states:

    Implement the pilot records database and ensure that it includes
all industry records for all training started by a pilot as part of
the employment process for any Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations
Part 119 certificate holder, air tour operator, fractional ownership
program, corporate flight department, or governmental entity
conducting public aircraft operations regardless of the pilot's
employment status and whether the training was completed.

Recommendation A-20-35 states:

    Ensure that industry records maintained in the pilot records
database are searchable by a pilot's certificate number to enable a
hiring operator to obtain all background records for a pilot
reported by all previous employers.

    On March 30, 2020, the FAA responded to the legislative mandates
and NTSB recommendations by publishing the PRD Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register.\16\ Consistent with NTSB
recommendation A-05-01, the FAA proposed to require all operators to
access and evaluate an individual's records in the PRD before making a
hiring decision. These records would include any notices of disapproval
the individual received during a practical test attempt for a
certificate or rating. The proposed rule stated the FAA would upload
data processed in the Certification Airmen Information System (CAIS) on
a nightly basis to ensure both air carriers and operators have the most
accurate and up-to-date information to make an informed hiring
decision. Second, consistent with A-10-17 and A-10-19, the FAA proposed
to require air carriers and operators to enter relevant information
into the PRD in a standardized format.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 85 FR 17660.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Implementation of this rule is responsive to both new NTSB
recommendations. Specifically, regarding Recommendation A-20-34, the
FAA only has authority to require reporting of records by operators
that have actually employed the pilot; however, the PRD will apply to
records concerning training prior to the pilot beginning service as a
pilot crewmember.

B. History of PRIA and PRD

    Congress enacted PRIA to ensure that air carriers adequately
investigate each pilot's employment background and other information
pertaining to pilot performance before allowing that individual to
serve as a flight crewmember in air carrier operations. PRIA requires a
hiring air carrier to obtain records from three sources utilizing
standardized forms including: (1) Current and previous air carriers or
operators that had employed the individual as a pilot, (2) the FAA, and
(3) the National Driver Register (NDR).
    The provisions of PRIA were self-implementing and the FAA's role
was limited; therefore, there was no need for the FAA to develop
implementing regulations. The FAA issued AC120-68G, which provided
guidance for air carriers, operators and pilots regarding compliance
with the PRIA statute. In advance of this rulemaking, the FAA moved its
PRIA records to an electronic pilot record database, the first phase of
PRD.\17\ Use of the PRD for review of FAA records is voluntary under
PRIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The FAA was appropriated ``under section 106(k)(1) of the
PRD Act and codified at U.S.C. 44703(i)(14), a total of $6,000,000
for fiscal years 2010 through 2013'' in order to establish a pilot
records database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the Colgan Air 3407 accident, the FAA issued a Call to
Action on Airline Safety and Pilot Training. The FAA published an
Airline Safety and Pilot Training Action Plan \18\ that included a
number of key initiatives including a focused review of air carrier
flight crewmember training, qualification, and management practices. In
addition, the FAA updated AC 120-68E \19\ on July 2, 2010, and
incorporated elements from the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Fact Sheet--Update on the FAA's Call to Action to Enhance
Airline Safety (Jan. 27, 2010), available at https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=11125.
    \19\ Advisory Circular--Pilot Records Improvement Act of 1996
(July 2, 2010), available at https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC%20120-68E.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the PRD Act, the FAA Administrator chartered the PRD
Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) on February 3, 2011.\20\ The PRD
ARC submitted a final report to the Associate Administrator for
Aviation Safety on July 29, 2011. A copy of the report is in the public
docket for this rulemaking.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The PRD ARC charter is available at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/documents/media/PRD.ARC.cht.20110203.pdf.
    \21\ The ARC report is available in the public docket for this
rulemaking and is also available at https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/committees/documents/index.cfm/document/information?documentID=312.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA also issued further communications regarding pilot records.
The FAA published an Information for Operators (InFO) \22\ on August
15, 2011 (InFO 11014), advising all operators that conduct operations
in accordance with

parts 91, 121, 125, and 135 to retain any records on pilots employed in
those operations.\23\ The FAA published a second InFO on March 13, 2014
(InFO 14005), further reminding the regulated entities of their
responsibility to retain pilot records dating back to August 1,
2005.\24\ The FAA also issued a policy notice titled ``Pilot Records
Retention Responsibilities Related to the Airline Safety and Federal
Aviation Administration Act of 2010.'' The notice directed FAA
inspectors to verify that air carriers or operators have a system in
place to retain records that the statute requires such entities to
include in the database.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ InFOs are documents the FAA issues that contain information
and recommendations.
    \23\ http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/info/all_infos/media/2011/InFO11014.pdf.
    \24\ Pilot Records Database--Status Update http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/info/all_infos/media/ 2014/InFO14005.pdf.
    \25\ National policy notice N8900.279, ``Pilot Records Retention
Responsibilities Related to the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation
Administration Act of 2010,'' is available at http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Notice/N_8900.279.pdf. See also 49 U.S.C.
44703(i)(4)(B)(ii)(II).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The PRD Act directed the FAA to submit a statement to Congress by
February 2012, and at least once every three years thereafter,
indicating completion of a periodic review of the statutory
requirements. The statement to Congress must contain FAA
recommendations to change the records required to be included in the
database or explain why the FAA does not recommend changes to the
records referenced in Section 203. In its most recent report to
Congress, in February 2018, the FAA indicated that it did not recommend
any changes until it considers public comments on the PRD rulemaking
proposal. The FAA expects to provide the next report by February 2021.

IV. Comments Regarding General Issues, Applicability, Pilot Privacy,
and the Transition From PRIA

    The Pilot Records Database NPRM published on March 30, 2020 and the
comment period closed June 29, 2020. Approximately 800 comments were
posted to the docket, many of which were form letters submitted by
National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) members.
    Generally, the Families of Continental Flight 3407 \26\ and others
supported the rule. Many commenters, particularly part 91 operators
\27\ and aviation industry organizations, opposed the proposed rule.
Commenters stated that not all covered records should apply to some
types of operators, such as corporate operators and operators
conducting public aircraft operations (PAO). They asserted that
requiring such operators to include all record types would cause undue
burden and would offer limited value, as the career path from part 91
operations to operations involving common carriage is less common.
Commenters were also concerned about the user fee, particularly as it
applied to small operators, and noted that they anticipated higher
costs for recordkeeping than the estimated costs presented by the FAA.
Commenters also requested a longer compliance period to transition from
PRIA to PRD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The Families of Continental Flight 3407 is an organization
of family members and close friends of the victims of Continental
Flight 3407 which crashed on February 12, 2009. This rule refers to
that event as Colgan Air 3407.
    \27\ The term ``part 91 operators'' refers to operations that
occur solely under the regulatory requirements contained in 14 CFR
part 91.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters expressed concern about pilots' privacy and objected to
the inclusion of check pilot comments in the PRD. Commenters further
objected to the inclusion of historical records and the method for
record reporting.

A. General Support or Opposition

1. Summary of Comments
    Most comments that generally agreed with the proposed rule were
submitted by the Families of Continental Flight 3407. These commenters
supported the creation of the PRD on the grounds that it would prevent
accidents such as crash of Colgan Flight 3407. Most of these commenters
stated the crash was largely due to pilot error and that the PRD would
have provided better review and scrutiny of pilot records, which could
have prevented the accident.
    The other commenters that generally supported the proposed rule,
including the NTSB, the Regional Airline Association (RAA), Small UAV
Coalition, and the National Air Disaster Foundation, did so on the
basis that centralizing records in an electronic database would create
a broad source of records available in a standardized format in one
location. This centralization would limit the possibility that
operators would overlook records, provide a seamless process of
reviewing pilot records, aid operators in hiring the highest quality
pilots, and improve transparency while still protecting the privacy of
pilots' records. One individual stated the proposed rule has some
positive aspects for part 135 operators, especially in obtaining timely
PRIA documents about a prospective crewmember's employment history, but
believed the costs outweigh the benefits. This commenter indicated
complying with the proposed rule would require hiring additional
personnel.
    Commenters who generally disagreed with the proposed rule stated
the PRD would not be useful, would impose an unfair burden on affected
operators or pilots or would be intrusive and violate pilot privacy.
Commenters also stated that the PRD would be open to abuse and false
reporting by employers, or would penalize pilots unfairly who do not
train well or do not perform well in the culture of a particular
airline. Others, including a flight department leader, stated the
provisions are unnecessary because airline and charter organizations
can change their internal hiring processes to assess the candidate
without needing to leverage a standardized process for review of
records. The FL Aviation Corp. and another individual commented that
the NPRM provided no data concerning accidents or incidents that
justify the change to the PRD or the requirements for inclusion of
additional records and recordkeeping. The Coalition of Airline Pilots
Associations (CAPA) urged the FAA to establish protocols to prevent
U.S. candidates from being placed at a hiring disadvantage when
competing for jobs among foreign applicants whose training data may be
unverifiable.
    Three commenters, including NBAA and CAPA, expressed concern that
the proposed rule differs significantly from the consensus
recommendations of the 2011 PRD Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC).
CAPA recommended the FAA reconsider the ARC's recommendations, in
addition to reviewing the public comments.
2. FAA Response
    The FAA carefully reviewed all comments received in response to the
NPRM and made several changes to the rule to ensure that it achieves
the safety goals of the FAA and fully implements the statutory
requirements set forth by Congress. As noted in the NPRM, industry,
including part 91 operators, currently is subject to the requirements
of PRIA. Although the implementation of the PRD changes the nature of
industry participation in record-sharing, issues such as pilot privacy,
abuse, false reporting, and penalization of pilots who do not perform
well exist under PRIA, as well. In enacting the PRD Act, Congress
directed the FAA to include safeguards in the PRD for pilot privacy and
related concerns. The FAA discussed these proposed safeguards in the
NPRM and adopts them, as appropriate, in this final rule.

    The FAA carefully considered the input provided by the ARC. The FAA
has already adopted many of its recommendations in the design and
implementation of the PRD. While the FAA does not currently plan to
implement all recommendations as described in the report, the ARC
assisted the FAA in formulating the design of the PRD. This design is
the result of careful consideration of the requirements, as outlined in
the statute, the FAA's operational capabilities, and the effects on and
benefits to industry.
    The FAA is mindful of all comments concerning costs of compliance
with this rule. The Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA), which is
available in the docket for this rulemaking, accounts for all costs
incurred by entities. Section VI.A of this rule also includes a
discussion of the costs.

B. Applicability of the Rule

    As discussed further in Section V.A.1., under the NPRM, part 111
applies to operators and would require them to report information to
the FAA for inclusion in the PRD. Specifically, the FAA proposed to
include pilot records from certain operations occurring under part 91,
such as public aircraft operations, air tour operators operating in
accordance with Sec.  91.147, and corporate flight departments.
    The FAA received comments related to the applicability of the
proposed rule from the General Aviation Manufacturers Association
(GAMA), the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), NBAA, the
U.S. Marshals Service Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System
(JPATS), NASA's Aircraft Management Division, PlaneSense, Inc.,
Dassault Aviation, and several individual commenters, approximately 500
of whom were using a form letter provided by NBAA. Many commenters and
the majority of individuals opposed applying the proposed requirements
to part 91 operators. Some commenters, including NASA's Aircraft
Management Division and JPATS, opposed the application of the proposed
rule to PAO.
1. Comments Received on the Inclusion and Definition of Corporate
Flight Departments and Other Part 91 Operators
    GAMA, NTSB, NBAA, AOPA, Koch Industries, operators, and individual
commenters addressed the proposal to require all corporate flight
departments to enter data on pilot performance into the PRD. Many of
these commenters indicated that the proposal would impose unreasonably
burdensome recordkeeping requirements on corporate flight departments,
which ultimately would benefit operators but would not increase the
safety of corporate flight department operations. Several commenters
asserted that Congress did not intend to impose these requirements on
corporate flight departments and the proposal was FAA overreach. Many
commenters noted that their corporate flight departments are small
operations; as a result, some suggested they would need to add staff
and modify their information technology systems to comply with the
proposed requirements.
    Several commenters objected to the definition of ``corporate flight
departments'' in the NPRM, arguing that the FAA is creating a new
category of operator, and that this is inconsistent with established
categories of operations under parts 91, 121, and 135. GAMA, NBAA and
its form letter campaign, AOPA, and the PlaneSense form letter campaign
asserted that no basis exists in the PRD Act to establish such a
definition and that it would add complexity and confusion. GAMA noted
the proposed definition would require aircraft operators to first
determine their status based on the definition and then add the new
burden and cost of compiling, maintaining, and reporting pilot records.
GAMA expressed concern that the proposed rule would expose operators to
the possibility of enforcement action in the event the FAA disagrees
with an operator's interpretation of the rule and the operator's
subsequent actions.
    GAMA, AOPA, and individual commenters asserted that the FAA assumes
erroneously that part 91 corporate aviation commonly serves as a
``pipeline'' or ``gateway'' to employment with part 121 and part 135
operators. GAMA stated that studies show corporate flight departments
are not gateway employers like flight schools with bridge agreements,
operators under parts 91 subpart K and 135, and the U.S. military.
Instead, GAMA stated that the most common path to part 121 air carrier
employment starts at a flight school. GAMA identified the primary
sources of airline hiring as part 141 and part 61 flight schools with
bridge agreements, parts 135 and part 91(k) operators, and the U.S.
military.\28\ CAPA stated those gateway jobs are ever-changing and that
although it is not unreasonable to require a certificate holder to keep
pilot records, trying to take this snapshot in time of what might be a
gateway job could lead to future loopholes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ James Higgins, et al., ``An Investigation of the United
States Pilot Labor Supply,'' University of North Dakota (2013); and
Michael McGee, ``Air Transport Pilot Supply and Demand--Current
State and Effects of Recent Legislation,'' The RAND Corporation
(2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NBAA stated that business aviation represents a diverse group of
aircraft operators ranging from single-pilot, owner-operated single
aircraft to multi-aircraft operators with a mix of fixed-wing and
rotor-wing aircraft. Therefore, according to NBAA, a single, codified
definition will not adequately address the diversity of the industry.
NBAA recommended the FAA remove any provisions that impose additional
recordkeeping requirements that would apply to corporate flight
departments and Sec.  91.147 operators, as recommended by the ARC. NBAA
also objected to the FAA basing the definition of corporate flight
departments on the number of aircraft a department operates, as doing
so could deter operators from purchasing aircraft.
    NBAA urged the FAA to limit the scope of the proposed rule to
operators with the most significant public interest, such as those that
conduct common carriage, and to facilitate the continued use of PRIA
feedback for part 91 operators. NBAA noted its member survey data
suggests that, on average, part 91 operators within FAA's proposed
definition of a corporate flight department receive less than one PRIA
request every two-and-a-half years.
    NBAA and other commenters stated that part 91 business operators--
particularly those the FAA proposed to include in part 111--have
excellent safety records, and the FAA's proposal and regulatory
evaluation fail to articulate any quantifiable safety value for
subjecting part 91 operators to the requirements of the proposed rule.
NBAA further stated that NBAA members, such as certificate holders
operating under part 135, are already subject to PRIA requirements and
report that PRIA results play a greater role in validating existing
pilot hiring decisions than in considering whom to hire. NBAA also
pointed out that including certain part 91 operators exceeds the NTSB's
recommendation, which only cites the need for parts 121 and 135
operators to share pilot information. NBAA recommended the FAA remove
part 91 operators from the proposed rule, on the view that records
provided by part 91 operators would provide minimal safety benefit to
part 121 and part 135 operators in their hiring process.
    An individual asserted that while InFO 11014 \29\ refers to part
91, 121 and

135 records, the regulations cited are for parts 121, 125, and 135
only. The commenter stated no regulation requires part 91 operators to
maintain records other than to show proficiency. The commenter further
stated the InFO does not address part 91 record retention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ InFO 11014, described in Section III.B., published on
August 11, 2015 and provided information about future PRD compliance
to air carriers and operators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other commenters stated that the FAA does not have statutory
authority to impose the proposed recordkeeping requirements on part 91
operators. PlaneSense and the commenters that submitted comments as
part of the PlaneSense form letter campaign (the PlaneSense commenters)
asserted that the PRD Act identifies air carriers and ``other persons''
as having obligations under the Act, but specifically identifies the
applicable pilot records to which the PRD Act applies as those kept
pursuant to part 121, part 125, or part 135. Citing 49 U.S.C. 44703(h)
and 44703(i), these commenters argued that the PRD Act does not include
pilot records of operators whose flights are operated under part 91 or
subpart k of part 91. The PlaneSense commenters also contended that no
statutory authority exists in either section 44703(h) or 44703(i) that
imposes an obligation on any operator conducting operations under part
91. They asserted that the FAA is overstepping its authority by
interpreting the definition of ``person'' in the PRD Act to include
noncommercial operators that the statute does not identify
specifically. These commenters urged the FAA to remove references to
fractional operators and corporate flight departments from the rule.
    An air tour operator opined that the proposal would burden part 91
operators far beyond the intent of Congress by requiring frequent
reporting by that group. Several commenters noted that corporate flight
departments vary widely in the volume and nature of records retained.
GAMA and other commenters suggested that the proposal would discourage
corporate flight departments from creating and retaining records not
otherwise mandated by regulation and may also discourage participation
in voluntary safety programs and optional formal training. One
individual suggested that while Congress and the FAA included indemnity
clauses, they are not robust enough to prevent civil defamation
actions.
    Dassault Aviation asked the FAA to confirm that the proposed
requirements for corporate flight departments are not applicable to
original equipment manufacturer (OEM) demonstration and OEM production
or experimental flight departments because they do not operate ``a
fleet of two or more standard airworthiness airplanes.''
    In the preamble to the proposed rule, the FAA asked commenters to
respond to three questions regarding corporate flight departments'
safety practices.\30\ GAMA and four individual commenters provided
responses. These commenters generally agreed it would not be beneficial
to require corporate flight departments operating a single aircraft to
report to the PRD because, in the case of owners operating their own
aircraft, they would be reporting on themselves. GAMA asserted the
Agency failed to ``adequately address the scope of operations conducted
under part 91, especially by owner-operators who use their aircraft for
a variety of purposes and will likely never employ pilots.'' An
individual commenter noted it would be impossible for corporate flight
departments operating a single aircraft to comply with the proposed
requirements because every private aircraft owner would have to report
on every pilot they employ or contract with regardless of how short the
term. Another individual asked how the FAA would know all corporate
flight departments are reporting to the PRD, as required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 85 FR at 17671 (requesting answers to whether it would be
beneficial to require corporate flight departments operating a
single aircraft to report to PRD; whether such flight departments
already maintain substantive records that include certain types of
information; and whether the proposed rule would create a
disincentive for such departments to create and retain records not
already required).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to questions about the records corporate flight
departments maintain, GAMA indicated many large corporate flight
departments maintain records documenting pilot training, evaluation,
performance, disciplinary actions, or release from employment or other
professional disqualification. GAMA also noted that pilots of many
corporate flight departments have responsibilities in addition to
operating aircraft, so employment records may also contain much
information that is not relevant to performance as a pilot and the
pilot-related data is likely to exist in a form that differs from the
record elements the PRD intends to include.
    JPATS, NASA's Aircraft Management Division, and individuals opposed
the application of the proposed rule to PAO. Noting that the proposed
rule would not apply to ``[a]ny branch of the United States Armed
Forces, National Guard, or reserve component of the Armed Forces,''
JPATS said that Federal flight departments should be treated the same,
unless the department maintains an FAA certificate, such as an air
carrier or commercial operating certificate. NASA opposed placing pilot
record reporting requirements on Federal Government PAO. Individual
commenters also recommended the FAA exempt PAO from the proposed rule.
One such commenter stated the proposed rule does not consider that
pilots from the Department of Justice (FBI, DEA, U.S. Marshals) and the
Department of Homeland Security (Air and Marine Operations, United
States Coast Guard) can be targeted for retaliation for performing
their duties.
    In contrast to the comments discussed above, NTSB and an individual
commenter expressed support for the inclusion of part 91 operators in
the proposed rule. The individual commenter said that, as an employer
of pilots for part 135 operations, it finds the current process to be
flawed and time-consuming with respect to obtaining records from part
91 operators. The NTSB agreed that part 91 operators often serve as
``gateway operators'' for air carrier pilots.
2. FAA Response
    The FAA carefully evaluated all comments received regarding the
applicability of each proposed requirement. Upon consideration, the FAA
determined that in light of the information and data provided by
commenters, some requirements of the proposed rule were overly
burdensome for certain types of operators. This rule reduces the
reporting burden for certain operators conducting operations without a
part 119 certificate, in that they are not required to report specific
types of records unless and until requested. Such operators include
public aircraft operations, air tour operations, and corporate flight
departments, referred to in this section as the ``PAC'' group. This
approach addresses many of the issues raised by commenters with respect
to the burden on part 91 operators. Under the final rule, a reviewing
entity will have access to a pilot's records as needed, but that the
reporting requirement for the PAC group scales according to the volume
of requests.
    Commenters stated that many pilots employed by PAC operators do not
switch employers often and NBAA noted that some operators only receive
a single PRIA request every two-and-a-half years. Accordingly, the FAA
determined the most effective way to ensure review of a pilot's records
by a potential employer, while reducing extraneous records loaded by
the PAC

group, is to require that group to enter only records that may be of
particular concern to a hiring employer. Section V.C.4 of this rule
contains a detailed discussion of this new method of reporting. This
rule requires these PAC operators to enter certain records
contemporaneous with the occurrence of a particular event or receipt of
a record; this framework will reduce risk associated with a pilot error
or omission with respect to that pilot's employment history. Section
V.D.3 provides a description of this requirement. This rule will
require the PAC operators to report all other records unless and until
requested, with the exception of an air tour operator's drug and
alcohol testing records.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Operators subject to 14 CFR part 120 must enter all drug
and alcohol records into the database in accordance with the
timelines and requirements included in Sec.  111.220.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA is mindful of the comments recommending exclusion of public
aircraft operations from the PRD. The FAA, however, does not have
discretion to completely exclude this group from the PRD requirements.
The PRD Act requires the inclusion of records from ``other person[s] [.
. .] that ha[ve] employed an individual as a pilot of a civil or public
aircraft.'' \32\ The FAA notes that the PRD Act specifically excludes
records from the branches of the ``Armed Forces, the National Guard, or
a reserve component of the Armed Forces,'' \33\ which would be public
aircraft operations under 49 U.S.C. 40102. The exclusion of records
from this narrow group of public aircraft operators, combined with the
statutory language generally including individuals who are employed as
pilots of public aircraft, indicates that the statute includes other
(non-statutorily excluded) entities that conduct public aircraft
operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 49 U.S.C. 44703(i)(2)(B) (emphasis added).
    \33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Permitting the PAC group to report certain records only upon
request is consistent with the FAA's framework for risk-based decision-
making. Operators under part 119 are subject to robust requirements,
concomitant with assuring the safety of the traveling public; in
contrast, operators in the PAC group conduct operations that are
subject to less FAA oversight and generally present a lower level of
risk, due to reduced volume and frequency. The FAA anticipates a modest
number of pilots will transition from the PAC group to reviewing
entities. Given the considerations noted above, this method of
reporting-upon-request available for PAC entities is consistent with
the PRD Act and is scalable with the level of risk of these types of
operations. These operators currently respond to requests under PRIA.
Excluding these operators from the applicability of the PRD entirely
would not serve the FAA's safety mission; overall, this final rule
requires an appropriate level of engagement from certain part 91
operators.
    The FAA also received many comments concerning the proposed
definition of corporate flight department. The FAA proposed to define
corporate flight departments as operators conducting operations under
part 91 with two or more standard airworthiness airplanes that require
a type rating under Sec.  61.31(a), in furtherance of, or incidental
to, a business, or operators holding a letter of deviation authority
under Sec.  125.3. This rule removes the proposed definition from Sec.
111.10 but instead includes the criteria in the applicability section
of the rule. The criteria are also amended to include rotorcraft, which
is described in detail in Section V.A.1. The FAA selected two aircraft
because operators utilizing multiple aircraft tend to have more pilots,
as described in the NPRM. Additionally, this rule will not require
single-aircraft corporate flight departments conducting operations
exclusively under part 91 to upload records to the PRD because, as
mentioned by commenters, such operators often include only the single
pilot conducting operations on behalf of the operator, who may be the
same person. Setting the threshold at multiple aircraft better tailors
this rule to apply to entities that may have applicable records.
    In response to comments regarding whether an OEM's operations fall
within the definition of a corporate flight department, the FAA
reiterates that if the operations fall into the applicability criteria
as adopted, part 111 would apply to that entity. Each manufacturer
should remain aware of the applicability criteria and assess whether it
meets the criteria for applicability.
3. Comments Regarding Other Types of Operators
    Commenters also provided input concerning other types of entities,
such as pilot schools and operators that are excluded from the
applicability of part 119. Several commenters, including Koch
Industries, CAE, and CAPA, asked why part 141 and part 142 schools are
not required to report, and suggested that those entities should
provide data instead of operators.
    CAPA also stated that applicability should extend to the U.S.
military. RAA supported gathering data from part 133 and part 137
operations, while the National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA)
agreed with FAA's decision not to require reporting from part 137
agricultural operators. NAAA stated that part 137 operators are not
``gateway operators'' for air carriers.
    Commenters also responded to the FAA's request for comment
regarding whether data from excluded entities would provide information
relevant to the evaluation of a pilot candidate for employment.
Airlines for America (A4A) stated it does not believe data from
excluded entities would provide information relevant to the evaluation
of a pilot candidate seeking employment. A4A recommended that the FAA
focus on ensuring the PRD is successful by providing technical
requirements and engaging with regulated entities before expanding the
PRD to other entities. Ameristar Air Cargo, Inc. (Ameristar) asserted
it would be unlikely that PRIA requests will be honored by foreign
carriers without a treaty or bilateral agreement with ICAO member
countries.
    The Small UAV Coalition commented that the proposed rule is another
regulation that applies to UAS air carriers only because a more
suitable regulatory scheme addressing such operations does not exist.
The Coalition stated that a set of comprehensive laws and regulations
specific to UAS operations would help resolve the regulatory compliance
burden that UAS operators face when seeking to conduct commercial
business under existing regulatory schemes. The Coalition did not
suggest that the overarching safety purposes of the PRD are
inapplicable to commercial UAS operations, but stated that commercial
UAS operations merit a realistic and tailored approach to record
retention and review that is an integral part of a comprehensive rule
on UAS air carriers. The Coalition urged the FAA to begin rulemaking to
update air carrier operating rules for UAS air carriers.
4. FAA Response
    The plain language of the statute only permits the FAA to require
employers of pilots to report records. The Armed Forces are excluded by
the plain language of the statute.\34\ Similarly, training centers
subject to 14 CFR part 141 or part 142 training centers would not be
able to report records regarding pilots who received training at those
centers, as individuals employed as flight instructors to provide
flight

training are not employed for purposes of operating an aircraft.
Therefore, the FAA did not propose to require compliance with part 111
by part 61 or part 141 pilot schools or part 142 training centers with
part 111. The FAA also considered comments regarding the applicability
of part 111 to operators conducting operations under part 133
(Rotorcraft External-Load Operations) or part 137 (Agricultural
Aircraft Operations). This final rule maintains the proposed exclusion
of those operations, for the reasons discussed in the NPRM. Primarily,
the FAA determined that those operators would not be likely to generate
records that would be useful to a reviewing entity and that pilots
employed by those operators will generally be employed by another type
of operator that would be a reporting entity before attempting to find
employment in service of a reviewing entity like an air carrier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ 49 U.S.C. 44703(h)(1)(B) (excluding, among other things,
records from ``a branch of the United States Armed Forces'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in the NPRM and adopted in this final rule, the PRD
Act is not applicable to foreign operators. Furthermore, the FAA does
not have the technical capacity to accommodate reporting from non-U.S.
operators. The FAA does not expect such entities to include any records
in the PRD; however, reviewing entities are free to seek out
information from any other previous employer for whom the pilot worked
in addition to accessing the pilot's PRD record.
    As explained in the NPRM, the PRD Act requires all operators to
request and review records prior to allowing an individual to begin
service as a pilot. As a result, the Act's requirements apply to pilots
of UAS when those UAS are used in air carrier operations. This
rulemaking is limited to addressing the statutory mandate of the PRD
Act; as a result, comments urging the FAA to initiate separate
rulemakings are outside the scope of this rulemaking.

C. Pilot Privacy

    The PRD Act requires the FAA to promulgate regulations to protect
and secure the personal privacy of any individual whose records are
accessed in the new electronic database; to protect and secure the
confidentiality of those records; and to prevent further dissemination
of those records once accessed by an operator.
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to mitigate risks to privacy by
adopting strict privacy standards and establishing limits on access to
the contents of the PRD. Specifically, the FAA will adhere to National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication 800.53
Security and Privacy Controls for Federal Information Systems and
Organizations to secure information contained in the PRD.
1. Summary of Comments
    Approximately 24 commenters, including A4A, the Cargo Airline
Association (CAA), NBAA, and Cummins, Inc., expressed concerns related
to privacy issues. A4A commented that notice of a pilot's death should
be supported by a certified copy of a death notice from any source, not
just from next of kin, in order to avoid overburdening the database
with extraneous information and increasing the risk of privacy issues.
Commenters remarked on the importance of keeping pilot records
confidential and only maintaining sensitive pilot information related
to termination of employment or unsatisfactory completion of airman
flight checks, and expressed concern about the data security.
Commenters recommended that pilots have control over who can access
their records and asked whether pilots will have an opportunity to
direct how the PRD will share their information.
    Commenters opposed the PRD on privacy grounds, stating that these
pilots never signed up to have this information shared. Several
commenters opposed including non-performance and non-aviation related
disciplinary records. Cummins Inc. also asked who inside the FAA would
have access to the database and who outside the FAA would have access
to the database and non-anonymized data. NBAA commented that the
information contained in the PRD should only be available to qualifying
employers for the purpose of evaluating a pilot-applicant.
    The A4A and CAA called for the FAA to issue a Privacy Impact
Assessment (PIA) \35\ related to the PRD. The commenters stated a PIA
is needed to address security and privacy risks of the PRD, given that
the PRD will collect, access, use, and permit dissemination to
prospective employers of pilot records. These commenters requested the
FAA address issues such as the time the FAA expects for it to approve
access to users, the training required of users, and applicable
parameters that will ensure privacy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ A PIA describes a process used to evaluate the collection
of personal data in information systems. The objective of a PIA is
to determine if collected personal information data is necessary and
relevant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA also received comments on keeping records for the life of
the pilot. Ameristar commented that if the FAA determines that any
record should be expunged, the Agency should not maintain that record
and referenced 49 U.S.C. 44703(i)(2)(A)(iii), which states that the FAA
should not include records subsequently overturned. The commenter said
that expungement and ``overturned'' as used in the PRD Act could mean
the same thing, and that adding definitions of these terms would
provide some clarity as to the treatment of the records. Ameristar
commented that these records should not be maintained nor made
available upon PRD request.
    The PlaneSense commenters stated they generally agreed with a
dissent to the PRD ARC recommendation, which said that the FAA should
remove and store, for an undefined period of time, deceased pilots'
records from the PRD for security purposes or assistance with an
investigation.
    CAPA disagreed with the requirement for retention of pilot records
for the life of the pilot. The commenter stated that no data supports
that information from an event that may have occurred years ago has any
bearing upon a pilot's current or future performance. The FL Aviation
Corp. commented that a request for a lifetime of records is itself
onerous and far-reaching and could cause spillover by forcing the
purchase or update of additional programs to retain additional data.
    An individual commenter expressed concern about ``the code quality
of the page where people register to use the Pilot Records Database,''
and stated the DOT sign-up pages for MyAccess should not be used
because of poor quality and security concerns. This commenter also
stated that the system should undergo a third party review.
    A4A recommended the FAA clarify that information in the PRD may be
shared with NTSB officials when investigating an accident or incident;
however, all other protection provided in the NPRM should continue to
apply.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ The NPRM proposed to exclude records contained in the PRD
from FOIA in accordance with the PRD Act, subject to certain
exceptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. FAA Response
    The FAA reiterates that the pilot is the only person with control
over which external entities view that pilot's records in the PRD. A
pilot must provide specific, time-limited consent to a reviewing entity
before that entity is permitted to view a pilot's records. A reviewing
entity can only query the PRD for records of pilots who have
specifically granted consent to that operator. After the pilot grants
consent for access to the records, the pilot must also provide the
reviewing entity with the pilot's name and pilot certificate number
before the entity can review the

records. The FAA is obligated to ensure that only information that is
relevant to a hiring employer's review of a potential employee is
housed in the system. Limiting the data elements available to hiring
employers is critical because the PRD Act requires the FAA to ensure
pilot privacy is protected.
    Additionally, the pilot can withdraw consent at any time for PRD
Airman Records (PARs). Records associated with a pilot are only
released to an operator (a reviewing entity) after the pilot has
created a PAR and consented to release of that specific PAR to that
specific operator. When a pilot provides consent in these cases, the
PAR is only available for a limited period of time, as selected by the
pilot. Each PAR is a ``snapshot'' of the records as they existed at
that moment when the PAR is generated and will not change even if the
records in the original data source change. This ensures that the pilot
knows exactly what is being displayed to the reviewing entity. When new
records are added to the PRD and the pilot wants the PAR to encompass
those records, the pilot must grant an updated consent to release the
updated PAR, which will then replace the previous PAR. For this reason,
while PARs can be available for up to 60 days, reviewing entities may
prefer that a PAR be released to them more recently to ensure the PAR
reflects the most recent information available. In addition to PARs
only being available for a limited time period, the pilot can also
revoke access to a PAR at any time.
    Reviewing entities that wish to review a PAR must also have the
pilot's name and certificate number to retrieve the PAR. Even if a
pilot has granted consent to the PAR, an operator will not be able to
search for all available PARs without having the name and certificate
number related to the PAR for which the entity is searching. The pilot
will likely provide the pilot's name and certificate number to the
hiring operator as part of the vetting process. If the operator
attempts to search for a PAR, but the pilot has not yet granted consent
to view the PAR, the PRD will report that no PARs were found for that
pilot.
    Other than when a PAR has been created and specific consent has
been provided to a reviewing entity to view that PAR, records within
the PRD are only accessible to the record owner. As previously
described, the record owner is normally the same entity which created
the record; however, ownership can change in some circumstances. An
operator that has entered records into the PRD can always view, edit,
or remove those records later, as appropriate, as long as it continues
to be the record owner.
    The PRD administrator will have the ability to view a pilot's
records within the PRD for the limited purpose of supporting a pilot's
request to release those records to a reviewing entity. This process is
only used if the pilot cannot access the PRD system and specifically
requests the FAA release a PAR to a reviewing entity. This will occur
when the pilot submits a completed and signed FAA Form 8060-14 to the
FAA for processing.
    Although the PRD administrator can view the records in the PRD
associated with a pilot, the FAA does not access this information for
any other purpose than to support a pilot's request to review that
pilot's own information, made via FAA Form 8060-14,\37\ and for other
administrative purposes. With limited exception, the FAA will not be
reviewing records in the PRD to search for instances of non-compliance
with FAA regulations. The only circumstance in which the FAA would use
records in the PRD in an FAA enforcement action would be in cases
involving suspected non-compliance with Part 111. Records contained in
the PRD could be used to prove instances of non-compliance with the PRD
reporting requirements or the absence of records could be an indicator
of non-compliance. In any event, the statutory exclusion of these
records from release in response to a Freedom of Information Act
request applies, with the exceptions listed in the PRD Act. The FAA is
permitted to release records to NTSB officials when investigating an
accident or incident.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ A copy of FAA Form 8060-14 has been placed in the docket.
    \38\ 49 U.S.C. 44703(k).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The PRD Act requires the FAA to maintain records in the PRD for the
life of the pilot and does not provide the FAA with discretion to
expunge records outside of that timeframe. The FAA acknowledges that
there is no research indicating that maintaining records for the
lifetime of a pilot imbues greater safety benefits than a more time-
limited lookback such as what was required under PRIA. Expunction of a
record is not the same as a record being overturned. For enforcement
records, an action under appeal subsequently might change the outcome
of the initial enforcement action. This could result in the enforcement
record being overturned and subsequently expunged. Expunction also
would occur when a pilot reaches 99 years of age or upon the FAA
receiving a notification of death.
    The FAA agrees with A4A that a notification of death need not be
submitted only by next of kin. Upon further consideration, the
information required to be submitted is sufficient to ensure
authenticity of the documentation and there is no safety or security
concern that warrants limiting who is permitted to submit such
information.
    With respect to the comment concerning the design code of MyAccess,
the FAA protects personal identifiable information (PII) with
reasonable security safeguards against loss or unauthorized access,
destruction, usage, modification, or disclosure. These safeguards
incorporate standards and practices required for federal information
systems under the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA)
and are detailed in the Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS)
Publication 200, Minimum Security Requirements for Federal Information
and Information Systems, and NIST Special Publication 800-53. Detailed
information regarding the steps taken to safeguard information for
MyAccess is available in the Privacy Impact Assessment for
MyAccess.\39\ The FAA will publish an updated PIA for the PRD in the
docket for this rulemaking, as referenced in Section VI.H., Privacy
Analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ U.S. Department of Transportation Privacy Impact
Assessment, May 31, 2017, https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/resources/individuals/privacy/282206/faa-myaccess-pia-05312017.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Transition From PRIA to PRD

    The FAA proposed a transition timeline from PRIA to PRD. The FAA
requested comments on whether the transition period should be shortened
or extended and whether it would be helpful for the FAA to maintain a
publicly available list of all operators that are fully compliant with
the PRD requirements during the transition period.
1. Summary of Comments
    Writing jointly, the Families of Continental Flight 3407 stated
that the crash of that flight underscores the criticality and urgency
of finalizing the rule. The families called on the FAA, the U.S.
Department of Transportation, and the Office of Management and Budget
to finalize the rule as expediently as possible, to ensure every
operator has access to the most complete information possible in hiring
pilots. The families also noted that nearly a decade has passed since
Congress required the PRD in August 2010. They further compared the
current economic challenges the air carrier industry faces to
challenges in

the decade after September 11, 2001, which they state led to growth of
regional airlines and cost-cutting measures that contributed to the
preventable tragedy of Flight 3407. The group called on government and
industry stakeholders to be cognizant of this history to ensure these
mistakes are not repeated.
    The Regional Airline Association (RAA) and Atlas Air commented
that, because it is difficult to predict the amount of time required
for the transfer of data, the FAA might need to extend the transition
period. The RAA recommended that during the transition period the FAA
maintain a publicly available list of carriers and other operators that
are fully compliant with the PRD ahead of schedule so that prospective
employers can query the PRD directly. Atlas Air and A4A recommended
similarly the FAA re-evaluate the sunset of PRIA requirements at the
end of the transition period and extend it if not all affected carriers
are in compliance with the PRD historical records requirement. Atlas
Air highlighted that the uncertainties of the coronavirus disease 2019
(COVID-19) public health emergency may impact carrier compliance. A4A
also recommended extensive industry participation in a test pilot
program.
2. FAA Response
    The FAA acknowledges the wide range of comments received regarding
the timing of the implementation of the PRD and the transition period
between PRD and PRIA. The FAA agrees that expeditious implementation of
the PRD is a top priority, but understands the potential technical
challenges that could occur during the course of the transition. After
consideration of comments on this topic, the FAA made changes to the
compliance dates and added interim compliance markers to facilitate a
smooth transition. These changes are discussed further in Sections
V.A.2 and V.E.
    The interim compliance dates are for submission of the responsible
person application, review of FAA records, review of industry records,
reporting new records, and reporting historical records prior to the
sunset of PRIA. This rule also provides the opportunity for certain
operators to request a deviation in the event of unforeseen
difficulties with the transfer of historical records. The PRD will also
provide information regarding which employers have fully completed
historical record upload for a particular pilot in order to eliminate
any duplicative reporting during the transition period. The FAA intends
to collaborate with industry by providing helpful information regarding
the transition upon identification of responsible persons by each
operator subject to this rule.

V. Section-by-Section Discussion of Regulatory Text

    This section provides an explanation of substantive changes adopted
in this final rule, as well as summaries of provision-specific comments
and FAA responses. It should be noted that there are non-substantive
revisions made throughout the regulatory text, such as section number
changes or edits made for clarity and consistency.
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to include subpart E to facilitate
the transition from PRIA to PRD. However, the FAA did not adopt a
regulatory requirement for continued compliance with PRIA in this rule.
Because PRIA continues to be self-implementing in statute until
September 9, 2024, part 111 does not need to include a regulatory
requirement for continued compliance with PRIA. The FAA provides
updated guidance in AC 120-68J with further information about continued
compliance with PRIA as related to PRD compliance. The FAA includes
sunset of PRIA in subpart A and requirements for reporting historical
records in subpart C.

A. Subpart A--General

1. Applicability--Section 111.1
    The FAA proposed that part 111 would generally be applicable to
part 119 certificate holders, fractional ownership programs, persons
authorized to conduct air tour operations in accordance with Sec.
91.147, persons operating a corporate flight department, governmental
entities conducting public aircraft operations (PAO), as well as pilots
with part 107 remote pilot certificates operating a UAS for
compensation or hire.
    Substantively, the FAA adopts Sec.  111.1 as proposed. After
reviewing comments received on the applicability of the rule, discussed
extensively in Section IV.B., the FAA acknowledges that pilots employed
by the operators mentioned previously transition much less frequently
than originally anticipated to employment with reviewing entities. This
revised method of reporting is discussed in greater detail in Section
V.C.4. Given that change, although the previously-mentioned entities
are still subject to part 111, the burden imposed is proportionate to
the level of risk mitigation necessary to fulfill the intent of the PRD
Act.
    The FAA amends the regulatory text proposed originally in Sec.
111.1 for consistency and to clarify which pilots are subject to the
applicability of the PRD. The proposed text captured which certificates
a pilot would typically hold in order to be subject to the PRD, but did
not note that only pilots who are employed by or seeking employment
with an entity subject to the applicability of this part would need
access to the database. The final rule removes the reference to the
specific certificates pilots hold, and instead includes a requirement
that would apply to any pilot working for a reporting entity or seeking
employment with a reviewing entity.
    The FAA also moved the applicability criteria for persons whom the
FAA defined in the NPRM as ``corporate flight departments'' (referenced
as such in this preamble) into Sec.  111.1(b)(4). The FAA amends the
criteria for a corporate flight department to include not only those
who operate two or more type rated airplanes but also those who operate
two or more turbine-powered rotorcraft, or any combination of two or
more of those aircraft. By adding turbine-powered rotorcraft to this
criteria, this rule applies to operators that operate more than one
complex aircraft under part 91. After reviewing comments on corporate
flight departments, as described in Section IV.B., the FAA determined
the definition proposed in the NPRM inadvertently excluded turbine-
powered rotorcraft operators. These turbine-powered rotorcraft
operators generally utilize advanced aircraft under part 91; thus,
their contributions to the PRD are as meaningful for safety as those
operating type-rated airplanes.
    The FAA also adds applicability criteria for PAO, which references
the statutory definition and criteria for PAO under 49 U.S.C. 40102 and
40125, but does not include operations conducted by any branch of the
United States Armed Forces, National Guard, or reserve component of the
Armed Forces. This applicability provision aligns directly with the PRD
Act.
    The FAA also adopts regulatory text to provide criteria for when a
trustee in bankruptcy must comply with the requirements of part 111,
proposed originally in its own section in the NPRM. The FAA proposed
that any operator subject to the applicability of part 111 that files a
petition for bankruptcy would still be required to report records to
the PRD. The FAA proposed that the trustee appointed by the bankruptcy
court may act as the responsible person for reporting those records to
the PRD. This section is adopted as proposed with non-substantive
edits, one of which notes

that a trustee must comply with the reporting requirements of subparts
A and C of part 111. While the NPRM only listed subparts C and E, the
terms of access in subpart A would also be applicable to a trustee.
Sections V.A.3 and V.C.11 contain summaries of, and responses to,
comments about requirements related to a trustee in bankruptcy.
    Lastly, this rule contains a reference to 14 CFR part 375
(Navigation of Foreign Civil Aircraft within the United States),
expressly to exclude foreign operators from the applicability of this
rule. Although foreign operators are regulated by 14 CFR part 375, as
discussed in the NPRM, Congress did not include those operators in the
PRD Act.
2. Compliance Dates--Section 111.5
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed compliance with part 111 by two years
and 90 days after publication of the final rule. The FAA revises the
proposed compliance dates in this final rule. The compliance dates
specific to each section or subpart were moved to the applicable
section or subpart for clarity. Section 111.5 provides the final date
by which full compliance with the provisions of part 111 is required.
    The FAA considered comments on the transition from PRIA to PRD,
further discussed in Section IV.D., and how to facilitate a smooth
transition to full compliance with the PRD for both industry and the
FAA. Upon consideration, the FAA determined that it would not
negatively affect safety to extend the final date of compliance,
primarily because the final rule adopts interim compliance dates set
between publication and September 9, 2024, to ensure persons subject to
the rule begin using the PRD before the final compliance date. The
compliance period is longer than originally proposed, but also begins
with specific steps towards compliance earlier than originally
proposed. As a result of the revised compliance dates, industry would
begin reporting new records and historical records dated on or after
January 1, 2015 one year after publication of the final rule. The extra
year granted for extended compliance serves to provide a full two years
of transition time for upload of historical records.
    The FAA's primary objective in adopting this final rule with
interim compliance dates is to be able to start extensive and necessary
collaboration with industry to populate the PRD with the highest
quality data. Additionally, the FAA is extending the compliance
timeline because the FAA is developing a method of electronic transfer
to facilitate reporting of large amounts of historical records
simultaneously. This will ease the process of reporting historical
records for operators reporting records from 2005 and 2010,
respectively. The FAA is committed to working with industry to enable a
smooth transition from PRIA to PRD and desires the least burdensome
process possible for record transfer. If the FAA is not able to provide
a method of electronic transfer prior to the final compliance deadline,
the FAA will consider extending the compliance date.
    The FAA originally included subpart E in the proposed rule, which
stated that air carriers and other operators subject to the
applicability of PRIA would no longer be permitted to comply with PRIA
two years and 90 days after publication of the final rule. The FAA
adopts that section here. Some commenters recommended that the FAA
continue PRIA; however, as the FAA discusses in Section IV.C.4
regarding comments about the transition to PRD, the PRD Act includes an
explicit requirement that the FAA's implementing regulations for PRD
must sunset PRIA. This section is amended to incorporate the extension
of the final compliance deadline by one year. Use of PRIA is no longer
permitted after September 9, 2024.
3. Definitions--Section 111.10
    The FAA proposed several definitions in the NPRM. In response to
comments received, the FAA amends several definitions to capture
accurately the intent of the requirement and maintain consistency with
other sections of part 111. The FAA also removed some definitions
proposed in the NPRM after determining they were redundant or did not
need to be codified.
i. Comments Received
    NBAA commented on the FAA's proposal to define the term
``employed'' as being paid for more than 20 hours per week for services
rendered to the operator. NBAA explained it expects this definition to
apply when describing individuals eligible to be the operator's
responsible person and to the term ``individual employed as a pilot.''
NBAA contended operators should not be responsible for submitting
records for pilots who are employed less than half time, as this will
avoid duplication of training records. NBAA also recommended aligning
the definition of ``employed'' with the common industry practice of
employing contractors on a daily basis. NBAA recommended that the FAA
use the defined phrase ``individual employed as a pilot'' in Sec.
111.105 when describing when a hiring operator needs to evaluate pilot
records.
    The PlaneSense commenters noted the proposed definition of
``individual employed as a pilot'' assumes the pilot is employed by the
company at the time the pilot first undertakes training, creating an
obligation to provide data on a pilot who may be receiving training,
but is not yet an employee and may not become an employee. These
commenters argued the definition is overly broad and that training
records could be used against them by a future employer. The PlaneSense
commenters stated such a requirement would circumvent an employer's and
applicant's right to privacy regarding screening and hiring practices.
These commenters requested the FAA revise the rule to reflect that the
pilot has been hired or otherwise retained by the reporting company.
    Cummins, Inc., A4A, and Ameristar expressed concern that the NPRM
did not include a clear definition of ``pilot performance.'' Cummins
urged the Agency to include clear guidelines regarding what constitutes
pilot performance and flying duties to ensure a consistent
understanding of the data to be included in the database.
    Ameristar recommended amending the definition of ``Record
pertaining to pilot performance'' to identify specific events that must
be maintained in the record, and that these events be limited to events
required by law or regulation; for example, the term should include
records of whether a pilot passed or failed a proficiency check.
Ameristar recommended the FAA define additional terms such as ``good
faith'' and ``trustee in bankruptcy'' for clarity and to remove
subjectivity. Ameristar also suggested a ``trustee in bankruptcy'' be
expanded to ``a trustee in bankruptcy of an air operator that hires or
utilizes pilots.'' Regarding the discussion about part 135 operators,
Ameristar noted that the rule did not distinguish part 135 operators
from part 135 air carriers. Ameristar indicated the proposed definition
of ``historical record'' suggests the record is only generated after
another operator requests that record. Ameristar recommended that the
FAA amend the definition to read ``. . . means records maintained by an
air carrier or other operator under the requirements of this section
(Sec.  111)'' and delete the rest of the proposed definition.
    A4A argued similarly that the FAA should clarify the meaning of
``pertaining to pilot performance.'' Specifically, A4A asserted the
proposed rule fails to resolve one of the key issues

that divided the members of the PRD ARC; namely:

    Whether the disciplinary or termination records of a pilot who
committed documented acts of racial discrimination, sexual
harassment, harassing or intimidating behavior that impedes crew
resource management, off-duty alcohol or drug misconduct, theft,
fraud and/or dishonesty should be reported into the PRD.

A4A noted that the issue of drawing boundaries around the ``performance
of a pilot'' split the PRD ARC members and constituted almost 20% of
the PRD ARC Report. A4A suggested that some language in the NPRM could
be read to support the position that records of actions such as
harassment and lying should not be entered into the PRD, but that other
aspects of the NPRM, FAA regulations, legislative history, and general
good piloting practices would strongly support the submission of the
grounds for the discipline and termination into the PRD. A4A stated
that parties need definitive guidance from the FAA on how to handle the
records of pilots who commit serious misconduct. Without a specific
definition, A4A argued, whether a specific act is ``related to the core
duties and responsibilities of a pilot'' will differ from employer to
employer and may even differ within a single employer's pilot
population as the phrase becomes subject to disputes leading to
arbitration and third-party resolution. A4A recommended that the final
rule clarify what is included in a pilot's ``core duties and
responsibilities'' and specifically address ``whether it includes crew
resource management considerations and the obligation to treat all
persons with dignity and respect.''
    NBAA recommended that the FAA use consistent phrasing throughout
the document and noted the need for consistency in the use of the words
``air carrier'' and ``other operators.'' For example, NBAA stated that
based on the proposed language in Sec.  111.220 it was not clear if the
reporting requirements apply to ``other operators.'' An individual
commenter stated ``other persons'' is vague and arbitrary and urged the
FAA to define the term and open the definition for public comment. This
commenter also noted the NPRM did not define the term ``public aircraft
operations.''
ii. FAA Response
    The FAA revises the definition of ``begins service as a pilot'' to
distinguish at what point the FAA considers a pilot to have begun
service with an employer such that a PRD evaluation must have been
completed for that pilot. This date is in contrast to the ``PRD date of
hire'' which is the first date on which an employer must begin entering
records for a pilot. The ``PRD date of hire'' would include initial
training and other training completed prior to beginning service as a
required flight crewmember. The FAA also incorporates part of the
proposed definition of ``Individual employed as a pilot,'' which was
duplicative of the definition of ``begins service as a pilot,'' and
adds that the individual can be employed directly or on a contract
basis.
    Commenters conflated the review of an individual's records, which
is not required to be complete until the individual begins service as a
pilot, with when records must be reported about an individual, which
will include any training that occurs prior to a pilot becoming a
required flight crewmember. All records generated about a pilot from
the PRD date of hire by the employer will be subject to the
applicability of the PRD. For the purposes of reporting records to the
PRD, the ``PRD Hire Date'' means the earliest date on which an
individual is expected to begin any form of company required training
or to perform any other duty for an operator subject to the
applicability of part 111 in preparation for the individual's service
as a pilot, including both direct employment and employment that occurs
on a contract basis for any form of compensation.
    The NTSB expressed an interest in ensuring all records applicable
to events prior to beginning service as a pilot would be captured in
the PRD, discussed further in Section III.A.1. The FAA intends to
capture any records that an operator may generate about a pilot in the
time between when a pilot begins training and the time a pilot is
actually assigned to act as a required flight crewmember. The FAA does
not agree with commenters who asserted that training records that occur
when a pilot is beginning employment with an operator should not be
included in the PRD. As discussed further in Section V.F.3, the FAA and
other commenters believe those records have significant value to a
potential hiring employer. Any training that occurs prior to a pilot's
actual employment with an operator would not be included in the PRD due
to the constraints of the PRD Act, but if the pilot is receiving
training and any form of compensation for that training, the FAA will
consider that pilot to be employed for purposes of part 111.
    The FAA defines ``begins service as a pilot'' to mean the earliest
date on which a pilot serves as a pilot flight crewmember or is
assigned duties as a pilot in flight for an operator that is subject to
the applicability of this part. This definition applies when a pilot's
records must have been evaluated prior to allowing a pilot to begin
service. This means an operator could hire a pilot and begin training
before evaluating all of the records in the PRD. However, a pilot
cannot be assigned to pilot duties without the operator having
evaluated the records in the PRD.
    Some commenters were concerned with how the definition of
``employed'' was used in the proposal. ``Employed'' in the context
raised by NBAA refers to proposed criteria for a responsible person,
described in the preamble of the NPRM, with no relationship to a
pilot's employment with an operator for purposes of reporting pilot
records to the PRD. For the purpose of accessing the PRD, the proposed
rule considered a responsible person for an entity conducting public
aircraft operations or corporate flight department must be paid for
more than 20 hours a week for services rendered to the operator. After
considering comments, the FAA is not adopting the NPRM preamble
description of ``employed'' as an eligibility factor for a responsible
person.
    The FAA amended the definition of ``final separation from
employment record'' by removing the list of examples of separation from
employment actions, which had included resignation, termination,
physical or medical disqualification, professional disqualification,
furlough, extended leave, or retirement. This revision reduces
redundancy with the updated requirements in this rule, which address
this subject adequately by describing the different possible
categorizations for separation from employment actions in subpart C of
part 111.
    The FAA amends the definitions of ``final separation from
employment action'' and ``final disciplinary action'' to reflect that
it is incumbent on the operator to determine at what point a
disciplinary or separation action is final and therefore subject to
either reporting requirement in the PRD. Each operator has sufficient
knowledge and oversight over its own processes for handling
disciplinary action; therefore, the operator is in the best position to
determine that an action is not subject to a pending dispute, which
would include any legal proceeding regarding the final result of that
action. Once no longer pending, including a record of it is
appropriate. Section V.C.7 includes a description of the comments the
FAA received on this topic.

    In response to comments asking for clarification of training
records pertaining to pilot performance, the FAA publishes an Advisory
Circular, AC120-68J \40\ with this rule that includes specific lists of
events which the FAA expects to be entered into the PRD based on the
training program for a particular pilot. The FAA intends that if a
record exists for the pilot as described at Sec.  111.225 and as
further described in the AC, and the record is retained by the
reporting entity, then it must be entered into the PRD. Each record
type that an operator will report is described by the event that
prompts the reporting requirement. The FAA considered including the
specific listing in part 111, but determined that approach would limit
the reporting flexibility needed as training and checking evolves in
the future. The FAA also removed the reference to the FAA from this
definition, because roles and responsibilities assigned by an employer
inherently are subject to FAA regulations or other regulations without
explicit mention in this definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Advisory Circular 120-68J, The Pilot Records Database and
Pilot Records Improvement Act Advisory Circular, which will be
published to the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA further establishes in this final rule what the Agency
considers to be a record associated with pilot performance. In Sec.
111.10, the FAA defines a record pertaining to pilot performance as
records of an activity or event directly related to an individual's
completion of the core duties and responsibilities of a pilot to
maintain safe aircraft operations. The duties and responsibilities are
assigned by the employer and are based on FAA regulations or other
applicable regulations, such as the Transportation Security
Administration or the Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration. Ultimately, the employer reporting the record would
determine whether the action causing the employer to terminate the
pilot's employment affected safe aircraft operations, as it is a case-
by-case determination. Situations may occur in which a pilot's behavior
or actions are not directly related to operating the aircraft but still
affect that pilot's ability to maintain safe aircraft operations. One
example of this would be documented harassment of a coworker who
operates an aircraft with that pilot, regardless of whether the
harassment occurs during flight operations. Fear of harassment could
negatively affect safe aircraft operations. The FAA does not believe
that it should preclude an employer from considering such an event as
related to a pilot's performance if that employer believes the event is
fundamentally related to maintaining safe aircraft operations, which
includes effective crew resource management. Overall, because good
judgment by the pilot is a critical part of safe aircraft operation,
pilot performance could include events other than those strictly
related to a pilot's level of skill in operating an aircraft.
    The FAA removed the definitions of ``air carrier,'' ``other
operator,'' and ``participating operator'' from this final rule because
those definitions were duplicative of applicability requirements. Where
the FAA refers to ``operators'' in the regulatory text and the
preamble, it is referring generally to all operators, including air
carriers and other certificate holders, who would be subject to the
applicability of this part.
    After review and evaluation of the comments, the FAA amended the
definition of ``historical record'' to remove the reference to the
Administrator, as it was not necessary. In addition, this rule contains
an amended applicability provision describing PAO, which provides
specific criteria based directly on applicable statutory provisions.
    This rule includes two definitions not proposed in the NPRM, to add
clarity to the regulatory text regarding which operators are subject to
each requirement. The FAA defines Reviewing entity as an operator
subject to the applicability of subpart B of part 111 (Access to and
Evaluation of Records); and Reporting entity as an operator subject to
the applicability of subpart C of part 111 (Reporting of Records).
These definitions do not substantively change part 111.
    The FAA did not adopt a regulatory definition of ``access the
PRD,'' but confirms its meaning is to use the credentials issued by the
Administrator in accordance with this part to retrieve information
related to an individual pilot, to report to the PRD information
required by this part, or for a responsible person to manage user
access. A pilot also would access the PRD to grant consent to a
reviewing entity to access that pilot's records.
    Lastly, this rule does not include a definition of writing/written
in part 111. The FAA will provide the appropriate signature
requirements within the identity verification mechanism of PRD
approval, as the FAA expects the PRD will accept digital signatures.
Digital verification of the pilot's identity by logging into the PRD
could also serve as a signature.
    The FAA otherwise adopts Sec.  111.10 substantively as proposed.
The FAA evaluated all comments regarding perceived lack of clarity or
inconsistency in phraseology used and made updates to the final rule to
convey clearly the requirements of each section. The FAA determined
that prescriptive definitions of ``good faith exception'' and ``trustee
in bankruptcy'' were not necessary, because the underlying regulations
concerning these terms describe them adequately in context of the
applicable requirements. This rule also contains edits throughout part
111 to maximize regulatory clarity, which alleviates the need include
the other definitions that commenters requested.
4. Application for Database Access--Section 111.15
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed requiring an operator's responsible
person to submit an application for database access including
information necessary for identity verification. The proposed rule
included the ability for a responsible person to delegate PRD access to
two other types of users (proxies and authorized users) and proposed
minimum qualification requirements for the responsible person. Proposed
Sec.  111.15 also included terms for continuing access to the PRD,
requirements for changes to application information, and timelines for
compliance for new operators subject to this part.
    This rule revises paragraph (a) to include an updated interim
compliance date in which reporting entities must submit an initial
application for database access. After considering comments received
regarding observed gaps in PRIA, particularly those received from the
NTSB and the Families of Continental Flight 3407, the FAA determined
PRD implementation would be served best by ensuring employers subject
to the rule begin to transition from PRIA to PRD as soon as possible.
The FAA also acknowledges comments received requesting greater
collaboration with industry and more time to enable compliance,
especially considering potential technological difficulties and the
effects of the COVID-19 public health emergency on the aviation
industry.
    The next step in building the industry records component of the
database and facilitating its use is to ensure each operator subject to
the applicability of this rule has identified a responsible person in
the database. The PRD program manager will collaborate with that
individual on the transition process. Consequently, the FAA includes a
provision in Sec.  111.15(a) requiring operators to submit an
application with all of the information

identified in Sec.  111.15 by September 8, 2021. Operators initiating
operations after September 8, 2021, must submit an application at least
30 days prior to initiating operations. Additionally, trustees in
bankruptcy appointed for an operator subject to the applicability of
this rule must begin to comply with the transition timelines of this