pilot's logbook records if the PRD recorded flight and duty records.
The commenter suggested a reviewing entity could compare the flights
shown in the logbook against the flights shown in the PRD. This would
only be true if the PRD contained every flight record, including
records for flights performed unrelated to a reporting entity. It is
not feasible to ensure every flight record could be entered in these
cases. If the PRD included some of the flight and duty records but not
others, the PRD would be inadequate for validating against a pilot's
flight records. Additionally, the PRD does not perform any data
validation to compare records entered against the various applicable
regulations. For example, the PRD does not check that a pilot has
performed a line check when required or that a pilot has successfully
completed all required training. The PRD simply accepts the record and
redisplays it to a reviewing entity. It is the responsibility of the
reviewing entity to use the information found in the PRD to help assess
a pilot when making a hiring decision and of the reporting entity to
report accurate information.
    This section also includes reporting deadlines. In the NPRM, the
FAA proposed including reporting timelines in a different section
(proposed Sec.  111.250). The FAA has reorganized part 111 to move the
expected timelines for reporting into each record section. The
remainder of Sec.  111.225 is adopted as proposed.
7. Final Disciplinary Action Records--Section 111.230
    As required by the PRD Act, the FAA proposed to include records of
final disciplinary actions in the PRD. The FAA proposed including
written warnings, suspensions, and terminations. The proposal excluded
any disciplinary actions subsequently overturned as a result of a
settlement agreement, the official decision or order of any panel or
individual with authority to review employment disputes or by any court
of law, or other mutual agreement between the employer and the pilot.
The FAA also

proposed certain data elements to be included in the record.
i. Comments Received
    The NTSB, A4A, NBAA, CAPA, ALPA, Ameristar, and individuals
addressed the proposed requirement to report final disciplinary action
records to the database. CAPA and four individual commenters opposed
the proposed requirement to report final disciplinary action records to
the PRD. The remaining commenters sought clarification from the FAA on
the types of final disciplinary actions for which records must be
reported or addressed other aspects of the proposed requirement.
ii. General Comments on Inclusion of Disciplinary Action Records
    CAPA and several individual commenters objected to the reporting in
PRD of any records related to disciplinary actions. These commenters
argued that such information is too subjective and that including it in
the PRD could open the door for false reports of disciplinary actions
by vindictive or biased employers and could unfairly affect future
employment opportunities.
iii. Comments Addressing the Types of Disciplinary Actions Reportable
to the PRD
    The NTSB, ALPA, NBAA, and A4A commented on the types of
disciplinary actions that would be reportable to the PRD. Noting that
it has identified deficiencies in pilots' adherence to standard
operating procedures as contributing causal factors in aviation
accidents, the NTSB expressed support for the FAA's proposal to expand
upon what is required in PRIA to include in the PRD, ``[r]ecords of an
activity or event specifically related to an individual's completion of
the core duties and responsibilities of a pilot to maintain safe
aircraft operations, as assigned by the employer and established by the
FAA.'' ALPA expressed support for the FAA's proposal to limit
disciplinary actions that may be entered into the PRD to only those
``pertaining to pilot performance,'' excluding any disciplinary records
arising out of actions or events unrelated to the pilot's completion of
core duties and responsibilities to ensure the safe operation of the
aircraft. NBAA asserted, however, that ``pilot performance'' is quite
broad and that the FAA should clarify in the regulatory text that
reportable disciplinary action is limited to ``pilot performance
related to the execution of aeronautical duties,'' as stated in Draft
AC 120-68J at paragraph A.1.1. NBAA contended this clarification should
be contained in the regulation itself to mitigate any malfeasance by a
noncompliant or malicious operator.
    A4A said that the definition of ``final disciplinary action
record'' is unclear because it combines two distinct types of
employment action--corrective and disciplinary--and is silent as to a
third component that is often a required element of a disciplinary
action, which is loss of pay or benefits. The commenter said the final
rule should clarify that loss of pay or benefits is not necessary for
an employment action to constitute a ``final disciplinary action.'' A4A
asserted that the proposed rule is unclear because it conflates
corrective actions with disciplinary actions by stating in proposed
Sec.  111.225(d)(1) that employers must report ``the type of
disciplinary action taken by the employer,'' and then stating in
proposed Sec.  111.225(d)(3) that employers must submit ``a brief
summary of the event resulting in corrective action.'' A4A noted that
some employers define ``corrective action'' as a non-disciplinary
action taken by employers to remedy a perceived performance short-fall
or minor misconduct, treating it as a training event, not a
disciplinary event. The commenter said that it is unclear whether the
FAA meant for the two types of actions to be identical or distinct.
    A4A also noted that the proposed rule requires only that final
disciplinary actions be reported, creating a potential years-long gap
between when misconduct or performance failure occurs and when it is
reported in the PRD, due to internal company grievance procedures. A4A
said the final rule must address this gap and allow for the transparent
transfer of relevant pilot records information to enable hiring
carriers to make informed decisions.
    ALPA strongly objected to the FAA's proposal to require carriers to
add written descriptions about disciplinary actions.
    ALPA and A4A commented on the proposal to prohibit entry of any
record of disciplinary action that was subsequently overturned. ALPA
expressed general support for the proposal, but for disciplinary
actions overturned after entry into the database, the commenter urged
the FAA to require carriers to submit requests for correction to the
PRD within 5 days of such overturned action, instead of the 10 days
proposed. A4A also noted that the proposal does not define what
``overturned'' means and said the final rule should clarify whether
all, or some, settlement agreements constitute an ``overturning.'' A4A
noted that the preamble points to language in House Report 105-372
(Oct. 31, 1997), clarifying that ``subsequently overturned'' includes
discipline that has been rescinded as a result of a ``legitimate
settlement agreement,'' and that a ``legitimate settlement agreement''
could include instances in which the parties agree the action that was
the subject of discipline did not occur or was not the pilot's fault;
however, it should not include instances where the air carrier agrees
to wipe the pilot's record clean in order to pass the pilot onto
another unsuspecting carrier. A4A argued that these examples in the
preamble represent two unlikely scenarios occurring at the margins and
do not address the majority of settlement agreements, which are entered
into to avoid protracted litigation without admission of fault by the
pilot or concession by the employer. A4A expressed concern over a
perceived contradiction in the proposed rule, which clearly bars entry
of disciplinary records when overturned by a settlement, without regard
for the basis of that settlement. A4A suggested the FAA clarify whether
all settlement agreements overturning a disciplinary action bar
reporting of that action or whether Sec.  111.225(b)(1) is limited to
only those settlement agreements that recognize the pilot was not at
fault.
    Ameristar referred to Table 3 in the preamble to the NPRM, which
contains the data elements required to be entered into a pilot's
historical record, and questioned why aircraft type is relevant to a
disciplinary action.
    NBAA expressed concern about proposed Sec.  111.260 and the
definition of ``Final Disciplinary Action,'' which would require
``other operators,'' presumably including certain part 91 operators, to
have a documented process for resolving disputes related to
disciplinary action records included to the PRD. NBAA asserted that for
a two- or three-pilot, two-aircraft operation, this could be
impractical or ineffective, as few individuals are typically involved
in human resources in a small or even mid-sized flight operation and
some such operators may not even have or retain these types of records.
NBAA argued that this is a reason why most part 91 operators should not
be subject to the PRD.
iv. FAA Response
    The FAA reiterates that the PRD Act requires reporting of
disciplinary action records. In response to comments regarding whether
loss of pay or benefits is necessary for an action to constitute a
disciplinary action, the FAA defines

disciplinary action for purposes of part 111 without mentioning loss of
pay or benefits because neither is necessary for an event to constitute
a disciplinary action. The FAA does not adopt any employer-specific
definitions of these events. The FAA notes that insofar as an operator
might internally consider certain correctional records as non-
disciplinary, this final rule intends to extend the same expectations
regarding record reporting to the PRD as was required under PRIA.
Operators should continue a similar posture to reporting disciplinary
records to the PRD as was the case under PRIA. It is incumbent on the
employer to include events falling within the general description this
rule provides, regardless of an employer's internal definition. The FAA
emphasizes, however, that the disciplinary action, as defined in this
rule, must be relevant to pilot performance.
    The FAA has reviewed comments suggesting the FAA require operators
submit a correction within 5 days instead of 10 days for actions
overturned after they are submitted to the database. The timeframe the
FAA proposed in the NPRM is appropriate as it permits slightly more
than one working week in the event the responsible person or other
users are unavailable for five working days. This rule adopts the
requirement, as proposed.
    Section 111.230(b)(1) and the PRD Act prohibit inclusion in the PRD
of disciplinary action records where the disciplinary action is
subsequently overturned. The threshold question in determining whether
a settlement agreement would cause a record to be removed or not
reported is whether the settlement agreement invalidates the
disciplinary action that prompted the creation of the record. When
considering what agreements should cause a record to be removed or not
reported, the interest of aviation safety supports narrowing that class
to those agreements arising from situations in which parties agreed the
action did not occur or was not the pilot's fault. As referenced by
A4A, the ``legitimate settlement agreement'' language quoted in the
NPRM further supports such a limitation.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ 85 FR 17684.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the FAA updates the regulatory text for this section
and for Sec.  111.235 regarding separation from employment actions to
reflect that the FAA only considers such actions to be overturned for
purposes of removing or not reporting the record where there is a
finding in either the agreement or in the decision of the person or
panel with authority to adjudicate employment disputes or a court of
law that the underlying event did not occur or the pilot was not at
fault. An affirmative finding is required; an agreement or adjudication
does not suffice to overturn an action where it merely leaves
unresolved whether the event occurred or whether the pilot was at
fault. If an agreement does not overturn the disciplinary action or
separation from employment action in accordance with the terms set
forth by the FAA in this part, then the record of the disciplinary
action must be in the PRD. The FAA fully expects employers to act in a
manner consistent with the PRD Act by not engaging in conduct that
would wipe the pilot's record clean in order to pass him or her onto
another unsuspecting carrier, as that effectively would undermine the
purpose of the PRD.
    The FAA also updates this section and Sec.  111.235 to change
``settlement agreement'' to ``documented agreement'' and remove ``other
mutual agreement.'' The FAA reconsidered inclusion of this provision
and determined that the only acceptable agreement between a pilot and
an employer for purposes of determining that a disciplinary action
record or a separation from employment action is overturned would be a
documented agreement. Whether the agreement could be deemed a
``settlement'' agreement or some form of ``other mutual'' agreement is
not germane; rather, the crux is that an informal, undocumented
agreement between a pilot and an employer would not be sufficiently
robust and verifiable to support removing or not reporting a record
from the PRD.
    The FAA will not require reporting of an aircraft type when
entering final disciplinary actions. The FAA agrees with commenters
that this data element is not relevant as part of the PRD record. Cases
might exist in which a reviewing entity considers aircraft type;
however, as stated previously, the PRD is not meant to be the final
source of data when assessing a pilot during the hiring process. The
PRD will be a baseline or starting point for discussion between the
pilot, reviewing entities, and previous employers.
    It is incumbent on the operator or entity employing the pilot to
determine when an action is final. Once no further action is pending,
this rule requires a record of the action. In determining that the
action is final, the operator or entity should conclude that the action
is not subject to any pending dispute, including any form of grievance
procedure or litigation. The PRD Act only permits entry of disciplinary
action records that were not subsequently overturned. As a result,
internal resolution processes that precede the record being final must
be complete prior to entry of that disciplinary action in the PRD. The
FAA acknowledges that, as the A4A noted, the PRD Act's prohibition on
recording actions prior to the final record could create a ``years-
long'' gap between when misconduct occurs and when it is reported in
PRD. The FAA concurs with A4A's example that if a disciplinary action
were ``effective'' that it could also be final, depending on the
operator's determination that the action is not subject to pending
dispute. The FAA does not have oversight over each operator or entity's
disciplinary system, and defers judgement to an operator to decide when
the action is a ``final'' record. Once an action is final, the record
must be entered within 30 days.
    Many commenters asked for clarification concerning the meaning of
``any final disciplinary action record pertaining to pilot
performance'' and core duties and responsibilities of a pilot as they
relate to sexual harassment, discrimination, or other misconduct.
Section V.A.3, Definitions, includes a description of the FAA's
considerations about which records pertain to pilot performance.
    The FAA adopts Sec.  111.230 with some changes to the regulatory
text, primarily to incorporate text regarding reporting timelines and
to add the possibility for certain operators to report records in
accordance with the process set forth in Sec.  111.215. In the NPRM,
the FAA proposed including reporting timelines in a different section
(proposed Sec.  111.250) but after further evaluation, decided to
instead include the expected timelines for reporting in each record
section. The new text also reflects the new method for reporting for
certain types of disciplinary action records, explained previously in
Section V.C.4
    This rule will not require a reporting entity to include a brief
summary of an event resulting in the corrective action. The FAA
explained in the NPRM that the PRD would include a text field limited
to 256 characters. The FAA reviewed comments on this topic and
concluded that 256 characters is not a significant amount of text in
which to explain such an event and that establishing a version on which
the employer and pilot agree may not be possible. Instead, consistent
with the FAA's view of the PRD as a source of basic information but not
the dispositive authority about a pilot's history, the database will
include several options for categorization and a place to enter the

date. Additionally, this final rule requires reporting entities to
retain documents relevant to a final disciplinary action record
reported in accordance with Sec.  111.230(a) for five years after
reporting that event, if those documents are available. Reporting
entities will also be required to provide those relevant documents to a
reviewing entity upon request. Under this provision, ``relevant'' means
that the documents form the basis for the record reported to the PRD.
The FAA envisions the relevant documents that reporting entities will
retain and share would be any information that would have been used to
develop the summary record proposed by the NPRM, such as a written
record of a suspension detailing the circumstances of the event that
led to the action. Additionally, the FAA would consider these relevant
documents to be available if the documents exist. The FAA does not
expect that there would be a difference between the types of
supplemental relevant documents retained under this provision and the
types of documents currently shared between employers under PRIA about
final disciplinary actions and separation from employment actions.
    The FAA notes that this final rule also adopts an identical
approach for any documents relevant to a separation from employment
action. The FAA's objective in adopting this provision is to ensure
that if more detailed information about complex employment actions
exists, reviewing entities have access to that information if desired
when making a determination about whether to hire a pilot. The FAA has
determined this requirement is commensurate with the frequency with
which potential employers are likely to seek more information about
final disciplinary action events. The FAA anticipates that most
reviewing entities will make a determination about a pilot based on the
information about the event that appears in the PRD, but encourages
reviewing entities to request further information if it would be
helpful in the hiring process.
    A reporting entity must also provide a copy of such information to
the subject pilot upon request, as would be required for any record
reported to the PRD, and a pilot can submit a dispute resolution
request for this information to a reporting entity through the PRD if
that pilot disagrees with the content of the additional records. The
reporting entity must provide these supplementary records within 14
days of receiving the request, consistent with the FAA's timeframe for
other record reporting provisions.
    As adopted, the final rule requires an indication of whether the
disciplinary action was a written warning, a suspension, or a
termination; whether the disciplinary action resulted in a temporary or
permanent removal from aircraft operations; and the date the
disciplinary action occurred. For PAC operators, only disciplinary
actions that resulted in a temporary or permanent removal from flight
operations must be reported upon the action becoming final. Any other
disciplinary action may be reported upon request from a reviewing
entity, in accordance with the process set forth in Sec.  111.215(b).
    The remainder of Sec.  111.230 is adopted as proposed, with
renumbering from the NPRM as reflected throughout this section.
8. Final Separation From Employment Records--Section 111.235
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed including separation from employment
records in the PRD, in accordance with the statutory requirement to
include such records. The FAA proposed requiring an employer to keep
records under separate regulations, as well as other separation from
employment records kept by the employer, specifically those related to
pilot performance. The FAA also proposed prohibiting inclusion of
separation from employment records where the action was subsequently
overturned.
i. Comment Received
    RAA, A4A CAPA, Ameristar, PlaneSense, Inc., and many individuals
commented on the proposed requirement for operators to enter into the
PRD certain information pertaining to a pilot's final separation of
employment. Ameristar asserted that ``[r]ecords pertaining to pilot
performance'' is vague, is redundant of proposed Sec.  111.230(a)(1),
and appears to include non-pilot related information that is outside
the scope of Sec.  111.230(a)(1).
    Commenting on separation from employment that an operator initiates
but that is not due to pilot performance, an individual commenter
asserted the FAA did not propose to allow the pilot's end-of-employment
disposition to reflect that the termination was unrelated to
performance. In such instances, the commenter noted, the operator would
indicate that the reason for the pilot's release from employment was
``Termination,'' but there would be no further explanation and no
opportunity for the pilot to add commentary. This commenter also noted
that no path exists for a pilot to provide or deny consent to comments
or records provided by anyone who registers as an authorized user
manager, which allows an authorized user to submit comments or records
on any pilot, even pilots not under the user's supervision. Addressing
a situation in which a pilot resigns after being asked to engage in an
unsafe operation, another individual suggested employers will fabricate
a reason for separation to affect the pilot negatively.
    Commenting on separation from employment that an operator initiates
and that is related to pilot performance, RAA requested clarification
regarding whether any termination related to a pilot's performance
would automatically create two entries into the PRD for the same
incident--one record of the disciplinary action resulting in
termination and another record of the termination, based on the
underlying incident. RAA also noted that operators sometimes use both a
primary and secondary reason for termination and questioned whether the
operator must report both reasons or only the primary reason for
termination.
    A4A said the final rule should clarify that only those professional
disqualifications related to pilot skills are reportable. A4A noted the
FAA provided examples of professional disqualifications that would have
to be entered into the PRD (at 85 FR 17687), which include a pilot who
has been disqualified as a PIC due to a failed proficiency check and
referred to SIC training and requalification. A4A stated the NPRM is
unclear as to why this is listed as an example of a separation record
when the pilot is still employed. A4A characterized this example as a
failed training event, not a termination event. A4A suggested that
including this example implies a carrier would be required to create a
separate record each time a pilot is disqualified for any reason, even
if that reason has no bearing on piloting abilities. A4A said that
requiring a PRD report upon loss of such qualifications would be
excessively burdensome and would not further safety.
    A number of commenters, including CAPA and PlaneSense, addressed
the proposed requirement for operators to submit ``a brief summary of
the event resulting in separation from employment.'' The PlaneSense
commenters objected to this proposed requirement and requested that the
FAA either remove it from the final rule or that the final rule provide
employers with immunity from legal action brought as a result of the
summary. These commenters argued that this requirement is beyond the
scope of the PRD Act, could violate pilots' medical

privacy, and could make carriers vulnerable to lawsuits.
    An individual commenter recommended that the FAA amend the language
in proposed Sec.  111.230(d)(6) to read: ``For separation of employment
a brief summary of the separation should be included.'' The commenter
said this would eliminate the loophole many pilots and air carriers
use, in that non-performing pilots might be asked or told to resign
instead of being terminated. The commenter argued this industry
practice passes poor-performing pilots from carrier to carrier without
a means to catch issues of performance found in the training
environment. The commenter pointed to the First Officer of the Atlas
Air 3591 crash in Trinity Bay, Texas, who ``was found to have resigned
multiple times for personal reasons.'' However, A4A went on to state
that ``examination of data in the NTSB docket indicates that he wasn't
performing at these carriers as expected, but was allowed to resign
without consequences.''
    CAPA objected to the proposed 256-character limit for summaries
terminations, arguing that such cases should not be subject to
arbitrary limits.
    NBAA noted ``furlough'' is not typically used in part 91 or part
135 operations and explained that few business aviation operators
furlough their employees. This commenter indicated that furlough status
may deter a prospective employer from hiring a candidate who is
furloughed from a part 121 air carrier position, as the candidate
remains eligible to return to the candidate's previous position. NBAA
recommended that the FAA replace ``furlough'' with ``laid off'' or
``position eliminated'' (temporary or permanent).
ii. FAA Response
    The FAA agrees, after considering all comments received, that for
many cases, a 256 character summary would not be sufficient. Adequate
opportunity must exist to explain sufficiently a separation from
employment action. Therefore, the FAA is removing the requirement for a
summary. Employers will designate by category what type of separation
from employment it was, and the date. As discussed in the previous
section regarding final disciplinary actions, this final rule requires
reporting entities to retain documents relevant to a final separation
from employment action record for five years after reporting that
event, if such documents are available. Reporting entities will also be
required to provide those relevant documents to a reviewing entity upon
request. The FAA is adopting this requirement instead of requiring
reporting entities to draft a 256 character summary of the event as
proposed in the NPRM, and envisions the relevant documents that
reporting entities share would be any information that would have been
used to develop the proposed summary of the event. This amendment
addresses the comments expressing concerns related to possible legal
action as a result of the employer posting a summary.
    As mentioned in the NPRM, the FAA understands situations might
arise in which a pilot may resign without facing repercussions for poor
pilot performance. Reporting entities should accurately construe the
separation from employment action in the PRD. Even if a pilot is
permitted to resign despite poor performance, a disciplinary action
associated with that poor performance in the PRD would likely exist. In
that situation, the FAA anticipates the hiring employer would review
the resignation and disciplinary action as a consideration worthy of
discussion with the pilot, and ask the pilot and former employer for
information about the incident.
    The FAA also removes the term ``furlough'' from the regulation,
because it would also be considered an ``employer-initiated separation
unrelated to pilot performance.'' Furlough entries should only be
reported once the separation from employment has been final for 30
days.
    If an event results in multiple outcomes, an identical disciplinary
and separation from employment action for a pilot might exist. In such
cases, the entity may report the event in the PRD as a termination as a
result of a disciplinary action and a separation from employment
resulting from pilot performance. All such information is relevant and
must be included in the database. The pilot has an ability to request a
correction or commence a dispute regarding any record, discussed
further in Section V.C.11.
    Generally, Sec.  111.235 is adopted as proposed, with corresponding
edits to reflect changes made to the previous section, including
reference to compliance with Sec.  111.215(b), moving details about
timelines for reporting into this section, and adding amended language
categorizing the type of separation from employment. The different
categorizations available in the PRD, such as a termination as a result
of pilot performance, including professional disqualification related
to pilot performance, physical (medical) disqualification, employer-
initiated separation not related to pilot performance, or any
resignation, including retirement, will provide sufficient detail to
give a reviewing entity a picture of any topics worthy of discussion.
    As discussed in the previous section in reference to disciplinary
action records that were subsequently overturned, the FAA also makes
corresponding changes to this section to reflect that a record is only
subsequently overturned if there is a finding in a documented
agreement, from a person or panel with the authority to review
employment disputes, or from a court of law that the underlying event
did not occur or was not the pilot's fault.
    The FAA otherwise adopts this section substantively as proposed. As
discussed in the previous section, the FAA made corresponding updates
to this section to reflect the new process adopted in Sec.  111.215 and
to reflect that PAC operators must report termination records related
to pilot performance contemporaneously.
9. Verification of Motor Vehicle Driving Record Search and Evaluation--
Section 111.240
    The FAA proposed that each operator subject to the requirements of
Sec.  111.110 must report to the PRD verification that it met the
requirements of Sec.  111.110. The verification would be required
within 45 days of the PRD Date of Hire. In Sec.  111.240, the FAA also
proposed prohibiting the inclusion of any State driving records in the
PRD. Section 111.240 is adopted as proposed, with edits to reflect
reorganization of the regulatory text. The 45-day timeline for
verification was removed from Sec.  111.250 and placed into the text of
Sec.  111.240. The FAA notes that this verification should be marked as
complete after the NDR report is received and the reviewing employer
has requested records from any States that the NDR indicated would have
records regarding the individual. Comments on NDR review are discussed
in Section V.B.3.
10. Special Rules for Protected Records--Section 111.245
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to prohibit the inclusion of records
protected by 14 CFR part 193 in the PRD. RAA and A4A supported the
proposal. This section is adopted as proposed, with clarifying edits.
No records reported as a part of an Aviation Safety Action Program or
any other approved Voluntary Safety Reporting Program in accordance
with part 193 may be reported to the database, as those records are
designated as protected by the FAA. Records not designated as protected
by the FAA about an event are still subject to reporting in accordance
with this part.

11. Correction of Reported Information and Dispute Resolution--Section
111.250
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed a process for correcting errors that
an operator becomes aware of with respect to information that an
operator reported previously to the PRD. The FAA also proposed to
require an employer subject to part 111 have a process in effect for
handling disputes regarding pilot records that an operator reported to
the PRD.
i. Comments Received
    Many comments addressed the proposed process for identifying and
reporting errors and requesting corrections to pilot records in the
PRD. Several commenters suggested the PRD automatically alert pilots
when changes are made to their records, require pilots to digitally
sign off on the accuracy of the changes, and provide pilots a free copy
of their record annually.
    Many commenters, including the Aircraft Owners and Pilots
Association (AOPA), expressed concern that the proposed rule did not
provide a clearly defined process for who is responsible for
identifying and correcting inaccurate information in the PRD. They
recommended those who have access to and might include information on a
pilot's record, including the FAA and past employers, must be
responsible for correcting inaccuracies that are brought to their
attention. ALPA commented on proposed Sec.  111.255, which would
require an operator to submit a request for correction within 30 days
after discovery of its submission of erroneous or inaccurate
information to the PRD. ALPA asserted prompt corrective action is
necessary, and stated that notices of correction are quick actions. As
such, ALPA recommended the FAA require correction of erroneous
information within 5 days.
    AOPA and NATA noted that no requirement exists for removing
inaccurate information, even if the information was demonstrably false.
AOPA indicated the proposed rule did not require the FAA to make a
notation concerning disputed information, only that the pilot may make
the request. AOPA recommended that the FAA evaluate and remove or
correct inaccuracies in the PRD if the employer is unwilling or unable
to do so, consistent with the Privacy Act.
    Several commenters, including AOPA, NATA, ALPA, and GAMA were
concerned that the FAA provides no guidance on how a dispute resolution
process should be structured and stated it is imperative that the
dispute resolution procedures involve meaningful review with well-
established, mutually agreed-upon procedures. They urged the FAA to
maintain oversight of the procedures to ensure a fair process. NATA
also commented it would be useful when managing disputed records for a
comment field to exist for all entries because similar challenges could
arise from omitting an entry for a pilot or entirely missing a pilot
entry, making it appear the pilot was never employed by the carrier.
NATA further commented that the proposed rule did not clearly address
how the FAA will manage pilot records of businesses that have closed.
NATA asked, if a pilot identified an error by a prior employer that is
now closed (and was neither acquired nor subject to bankruptcy
proceedings), to whom the pilot should direct the request for
correction and what outcomes are possible.
    A4A commented on the process for resolving disputes over
information documented in the PRD, asking the FAA to clarify the
meaning of ``dispute,'' ``documented process for resolving disputes,''
and ``investigation.'' A4A recommended the FAA limit ``disputes'' to
errors and inaccuracies in the PRD and foreclose any substantive
challenge to the information contained within the record. A4A also
recommended that the FAA provide a form on the PRD site (which the FAA
would manage), in which pilots would enter their disputed claim. A4A
recommended the final rule clarify that the dispute notation will
remain in the PRD only during the pendency of the dispute. A4A also
recommended that the final rule clarify that a negotiated grievance
procedure under a collective bargaining agreement or, where applicable,
other administrative grievance procedure meets the requirements of
proposed Sec.  111.260(a). Further, A4A asked the FAA to clarify that
the collective bargaining agreement resolution process would satisfy
carrier information correction requirements under the PRD. A4A said the
final rule should not permit multiple disputes of the same information.
Finally, A4A asked the FAA to clarify that when a carrier corrects an
error in the PRD, only the new or corrected record will remain in the
PRD.
    With respect to historical records, NATA indicated it is possible
there are no current air carrier employees with first-hand knowledge of
prior pilots and the events recorded for them, and asked what carrier
actions the FAA would consider reasonable. NATA argued complications
associated with historical records support the need for the ability to
upload copies of physical documents to the PRD, the creation of larger
summary text fields, and for adding those summary text fields to any
record. NATA requested that the FAA provide additional information on
how a carrier should proceed if there are gaps in their historical
records.
    Several commenters raised concerns about the potential for misuse
of the information in the PRD. AOPA and an individual commenter noted
the potential exists for employers to use the PRD in a coercive manner
against current and former employees. CAPA commented that during
periods of rapid growth, a carrier wishing to avoid pilot turnover
could prevent its pilots from being considered for employment by other
airlines by including training comments intended to discourage their
selection. Several individuals noted the potential for an employer to
purposefully or accidentally input incorrect or biased information
about a pilot.
    ALPA said the FAA should confirm that it has a legal responsibility
to ensure data entered into and maintained in the PRD complies with the
law. Where a pilot complains that data has been entered in violation of
section 203 of the PRD Act, or has not been removed as required, ALPA
stated the FAA should provide a procedure to remedy such actions. ALPA
recommended the FAA provide pilots with a right of appeal through NTSB
appeal procedures, according to 14 CFR part 821, to resolve any such
unresolved claims.
    A4A recommended that the FAA clarify explicitly in the final rule
that air carriers and proxies have the option to access the PRD to
review and correct information the air carrier reported to the PRD.
ii. FAA Response
    In the NPRM, Sec.  111.250, Duty to Report Records Promptly,
provided timelines for required records to be submitted to the FAA in a
timely fashion. Section 111.250 listed required records and included
specific days within which the records must be reported to the FAA. The
FAA removes this regulatory section in its entirety and places each of
those timeframes within the respective regulatory sections that
discussed the underlying record requirement. As a result, the
regulatory sections are renumbered, and proposed Sec.  111.245,
Requests for correction of reported information, is renumbered and re-
titled Sec.  111.250, Correction of reported information and dispute
resolution. This section now also contains the provisions regarding the

dispute resolution process. The FAA considered all comments received on
the error correction and dispute resolution process and made revisions
to clarify certain aspects of the process.
    The FAA received many comments on the NPRM requesting the FAA
include more detailed, prescriptive requirements concerning dispute
resolution, and for the FAA to confirm it has a legal responsibility to
confirm data entered into the PRD complies with the law. However, as
noted in the NPRM and in this final rule, the FAA is not required to
verify the accuracy of data that reporting entities submit to the PRD.
Operators are obligated by regulation and statute to enter accurate
information and are in the best possible position to ensure that
information is accurate. The PRD Act does not require the FAA to
provide prescriptive requirements concerning disputes over information
or to oversee a dispute resolution process. The FAA discusses the
agency's privacy obligations in the Privacy Impact Assessment for PRD,
which will be posted on the docket for this final rule. Nonetheless,
the FAA has included requirements in this rule that ensure pilots are
afforded remedies if they believe reporting entities have reported
erroneous data. These requirements will limit misinformation or misuse
of the PRD. Reporting entities must provide final disposition of record
disputes to pilots who believe information provided by the entity is
inaccurate and to identify disputed records within the PRD system.
These processes fulfill the statutory requirement that individuals may
make written requests to the Administrator, who will provide
individuals a reasonable opportunity to submit written comments to
correct any inaccuracies contained in the record.
    Finally, although the FAA does not determine the accuracy of
records provided by reporting entities, pilots may submit requests for
amendment under the Privacy Act to the FAA if they believe records
created and maintained by the FAA in its databases, as described in 49
U.S.C. 44703(i)(2), are inaccurate.
    As mentioned previously, a pilot always has the option of
requesting correction to a record with which the pilot disagrees. A
reporting entity is obligated to correct any information that the
employer confirms is inaccurate. If a pilot can demonstrate to the
reporting entity that the information it entered in the database is
inaccurate, the reporting entity must correct the information. Any
abuse of the PRD by a reporting entity through the misreporting of
information about a pilot would be both a regulatory and statutory
violation and of great concern to the FAA. Fraud or intentional
falsification of records reported to the PRD is prohibited under Sec.
111.35. Pilots can report fraud or suspected intentional falsification
of records to the FAA for investigation.
    With respect to comments regarding the potential for employers to
use the PRD in a coercive manner, the FAA acknowledges that this is an
inherent concern for any exchange of records about a person, and
arguably exists under PRIA. The provision of appropriate statutory and
regulatory opportunity for pilots to note disputes mitigates the
potential for misuse.
    The FAA clarified in Section IV.C.7 and 8 that summaries of the
separation and disciplinary action records are not being required to be
submitted under this final rule. The FAA recommends that reviewing
entities to communicate with the pilot and the reporting entity about
the exact nature of the disciplinary or separation action record,
appropriately categorized.
    In response to ALPA's comment regarding 14 CFR part 821, that part
is codified in NTSB regulations and only applies to certificate
actions, rather than resolution of disputes concerning pilot records.
The FAA cannot amend another agency's regulations.
    A pilot dispute of an error or inaccuracy could be substantive or
non-substantive in nature. Pilots may flag the error or inaccuracy in
the PRD directly, but the request for correction goes through the PRD
directly to the reporting entity and would be resolved by that entity.
No FAA approval is necessary to correct the record. The dispute
notation will remain in the PRD only during the pendency of the
dispute. The pilot may remove the dispute indicator if the pilot is
satisfied that the record has been corrected. If a reporting entity
corrects an error in the PRD, only the new or corrected record will
remain visible in the PRD.
    A negotiated grievance procedure under a collective bargaining
agreement or, where applicable, other administrative grievance
procedure would meet the requirements of Sec.  111.255. The FAA does
not set requirements for the details of employers' dispute resolution
processes.
    Information correction requirements under the PRD are complete once
a record has either been corrected or the dispute process is complete.
Because the FAA does not have a basis to determine the accuracy of
industry records, if a reporting entity goes out of business and there
is no trustee in bankruptcy to handle dispute resolution obligations,
the record would remain in dispute in the PRD indefinitely. The FAA
expects a pilot would explain the nature of the disagreement to a
hiring employer.
    The FAA adopts the proposed provisions with edits to consolidate
the regulation. The FAA also revised the reporting timeframe for record
correction to occur within 10 days, unless the reporting entity engages
the pilot in its dispute resolution process.
    If an operator disagrees with the request for correction of
erroneous information, it must engage the pilot requesting the
correction in its direct dispute process. The operator must initiate
investigation within 30 days, and, within a reasonable amount of time
in consideration of the proceedings to establish the accuracy of the
record, provide final disposition to the PRD. As mentioned previously,
these capabilities will all be built into the functionality of the PRD.
12. Duty To Report Historical Records to the PRD--Section 111.255
    Proposed Sec.  111.420 incorporated the statutory requirement for
air carriers and operators subject to PRIA to enter historical records
into the PRD. For air carriers, the PRD Act requires that records
dating from August 1, 2005, be entered into the PRD. For other persons,
the Act requires records dating from August 1, 2010 must be entered
into the PRD. The FAA adopts this provision in the final rule in
subpart C.
i. Comments Received
    A4A recommended adopting a final rule that does not include a
historical documents requirement. A4A stated that the obligation to
provide ``records that the air carrier or other person is maintaining
on such date of enactment'' under 49 U.S.C. 44703(i)(4) must be read in
the context of the continued obligations to comply with PRIA until the
PRD final rule is in effect. A4A stated the FAA accepted this
implicitly when it discussed Alternative 4 in the Regulatory
Flexibility Determination section of the NPRM and did not argue that
this alternative is contrary to law.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ Alternative 4 would require air carriers and operators to
report present and future pilot records to the PRD, but continue to
send historical records under PRIA until the PRD has 5 years of
pilot records (by the start of 2025, the PRD would have data from
2020 to 2024), at which point PRIA could be discontinued. 85 FR
17701, March 30, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A4A opposed requirements for historical records of positive drug
and alcohol test results or of a refusal to take the test. A4A
suggested Congress may have intended to reference Sec. Sec.  120.111(a)
and 120.219(a), which only require certain records be retained. The

commenter stated that neither of these sections require the return-to-
duty tests for more than a year, and for this reason, the FAA cannot
expect all carriers to have retained more than one year of these
records.
    A4A commented that the proposed regulation captures significant
historical records that are not relevant to the hiring determination.
The commenter also stated that, because of the significant burden of
providing historical records and the nominal value of doing so, the FAA
should not subject carriers to undisclosed or future intention to
report additional historical information. One commenter noted that
recordkeeping obligation of fractional operators in Sec.  91.1027(a)(3)
and (b) is to maintain records for a minimum of 12 months.
    CAPA noted the backfilling of past pilot records accurately could
be time consuming and expensive, if not impossible, and future guidance
on recording training events that might result from this new rule may
not translate accurately to previous recordkeeping practices. This
commenter argued a requirement to provide historical records during the
current COVID-19 public health emergency is unreasonable, and the new
regulation should provide a consistent methodology to record and report
data and have a defined future starting point.
    The FAA received other comments on historical record reporting
format; these comments are addressed in Section V.C.3. regarding the
format for reporting records.
ii. FAA Response
    As discussed extensively in the NPRM, the FAA is required by
statute to include historical records in the PRD and does not have
discretion to adjust the dates or records that the PRD must include.
A4A's analysis disregarded critical text in 49 U.S.C. 44703(i)(4). The
subsection cited in the PRD Act, particularly (h)(4)(B)(ii)(II),
requires air carriers and other persons to report ``[r]ecords that the
air carrier or other person is maintaining, on such date of enactment
pursuant to subsection (h)(4).'' As stated above, subsection (h)(4)
encompasses the 5-year period preceding the enactment of the PRD Act.
Alternative 4 was not accepted for legal reasons. This alternative was
discussed per the initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of impacts on
small entities prepared for the NPRM as a means of addressing potential
cost. At the time of the NPRM, the FAA presented Alternative 4 as a
potentially legally permissible option, but on further review,
determined that this was not the case. If it were legally permissible,
Alternative 4 might be a less costly solution than the final rule;
however, given the lack of available data, the FAA is not able to
ascertain whether including historical records only in a manner that
mimics PRIA would achieve the purpose of the PRD Act. This final rule
provides the lowest cost legally-permissible solution. The FAA will
include a summary of commenters' concerns regarding the lookback period
for historical records in its next triannual report to Congress, as set
forth in 49 U.S.C. 44703(i)(12).
    Regarding drug and alcohol testing records, Section IV.C.5.
contains a response to A4A's statement regarding recordkeeping
requirements for return-to-duty test results.
    The FAA adopts this regulation as proposed, with some changes.
Paragraph (c) is revised to list the specific types of operators that
do not have to comply with the historical records reporting
requirement. That group is the same as from the NPRM, but now more
clearly defined. Additionally, the deadline for reporting historical
records is now three years and 90 days after publication of the rule to
coincide with sole compliance with part 111. The FAA also added a
provision to establish interim timelines for historical records
reporting. The FAA understands that operators uploading historical
records may have significant records to provide to the PRD. To
facilitate a PRD transition that focuses on the most relevant records
in accordance with concerns expressed by the NTSB and the Families of
Continental Flight 3407, the FAA will prioritize uploading historical
records that date on or after January 1, 2015. Those historical records
must be uploaded within two years of the date of publication of the
final rule. All other historical records must be uploaded prior to the
last date of PRIA usage, which will be three years and 90 days after
publication of the final rule.
    The section will include opportunity to request deviation from the
compliance dates provided in (d) of this section. The FAA will consider
providing deviations based on an evaluation that the delay in uploading
historical records is due to circumstances beyond the control of the
air carrier or other operator and that such a delay would not have an
adverse effect on safety. Any operator seeking a deviation must include
all information listed in subparagraph (2) in order for the FAA to be
able to consider the request for deviation. The Administrator may
terminate the grant of deviation at any time upon notice to the
operator. During the term of the deviation, the operator must continue
to retain historical records for reporting to the PRD and would be
required to provide individual pilot records upon request, if a request
arises.
    The FAA intends to engage with the responsible persons for each
subject entity upon approval of a responsible person's application. The
FAA is eager to begin the implementation process. The FAA will work
with responsible persons to facilitate setting up PRD user accounts and
to begin mandatory FAA records review. Over the course of the next
year, the PRD program manager will also work closely with responsible
persons from reporting entities to ensure technical challenges are
overcome along the path to compliance. AC 120-68J accompanies this
final rule, and further guidance will continue to follow as the
implementation process progresses. The FAA is committed to working with
industry to facilitate a smooth transition from PRIA to PRD and to
ensure that all pertinent records, as required by the statute, are
included in the PRD. Over time, once contemporaneous reporting is
ongoing for five years and PRD compliance is normalized, the FAA
expects operators will benefit from a cost savings.
    The remainder of Sec.  111.255 is adopted as proposed.

D. Subpart D--Pilot Access and Responsibilities

1. Applicability--Section 111.300
    The FAA proposed in the NPRM that subpart D would apply to pilots
holding an airline transport or commercial pilot certificate under 14
CFR part 61, as well as any remote pilots operating with a part 107
certificate or any individual who is employed as a pilot by an operator
of a public aircraft. As adopted, this subpart will apply to any pilot
meeting the criteria in Sec.  111.1, regardless of the certificate, in
accordance with revisions made for consistency with Sec.  111.1. The
FAA notes that in response to a comment from AOPA about whether pilots
without a commercial certificate would be able to access their records:
Only pilots that would be employed by an operator subject to this part
would have industry records in the PRD. Any other records would be FAA
records with which the pilot would likely already be familiar.
2. Application for Database Access--Section 111.305
    In this section, the FAA proposed regulations governing pilot
access to the PRD and the minimum information

necessary to gain access. The FAA also proposed to require submission
of an application seven days prior to the anticipated date of access
and that continued access would be subject to compliance with Sec.
111.25.
i. Comments Received
    One commenter stated the proposed requirement for pilots to provide
a current U.S. mailing address and telephone number would prevent many
pilots, who live outside the U.S. but are employed by U.S. air
carriers, from being able to access their database records.
Furthermore, it may inhibit pilots who live abroad but hold FAA-issued
airman certificates from applying for jobs with U.S. based companies,
as companies might not seek to work with paper-based release from
liability agreements that would be required for access to a pilot's
records. This commenter recommended the FAA allow those pilots access
to the PRD through another means of validation that does not require a
U.S. mailing address.
ii. FAA Response
    The FAA adopts Sec.  111.305 as proposed with three changes. The
first change is that a pilot must first request access to the PRD for
the purposes listed in Sec.  111.305(a) if the pilot is requesting
access to the pilot's own records, except as provided in Sec.
111.315(c). Second, in response to concerns from commenters about the
requirement for a U.S. mailing address, the FAA determined that for
purposes of this regulation, a requirement for the pilot to have a U.S.
mailing address is unnecessary. However, the FAA notes that system
capabilities may be functionally limited for web access outside the
United States. The FAA acceptance of an address does not guarantee an
ability to access the PRD while located physically outside the United
States. Third, the FAA removed the provision proposed in (d), which was
duplicative of the denial of access provision adopted at Sec.  111.25.
3. Written Consent--Section 111.310
    In Sec.  111.310, the FAA proposed to require air carriers and
other operators obtain consent from a pilot for review of both PRD
records and any State motor vehicle driving records about that pilot.
The FAA amends proposed Sec.  111.310 to include affirmation of pilot
employment history dating back five years. Inclusion of this pilot
employment history addresses concerns from commenters, and in
particular the NTSB, that there could be a gap in history for certain
pilots, particularly if not all pilot records are uploaded
contemporaneously, as discussed in Section V.C regarding Sec.  111.215.
By requiring a pilot to provide an affirmation that their employment
history for five years preceding the date of consent is accurate and
complete and also by requiring employers to upload records that
indicate problematic pilot performance, the FAA will ensure that a
potential employer has access to all pilot records for review prior to
permitting the pilot to begin service. The FAA otherwise adopts Sec.
111.310 without substantive changes. The FAA did not receive any
comments specific to this provision.
4. Pilot Right of Review--Section 111.315
    The PRD Act provides a statutory right of review for a pilot of his
or her records. The FAA proposed to codify this right to review in
Sec.  111.315. The pilot has the right to review both the pilot record
reflected in the PRD, as well as a copy of any State motor vehicle
driving records that may have been provided to a prospective employer.
The FAA adopts this section substantively as proposed, and adds
paragraph (c), which allows a pilot to submit a request to the FAA so
that the pilot can review all records contained in the PRD pertaining
to that pilot, without credentials issued in accordance with Sec.
111.305. The PRD record would be transmitted external to the database,
so the pilot could access his or her record without accessing the PRD
database. The FAA did not receive any comments specific to this
provision.
5. Reporting Errors and Requesting Corrections--Section 111.320
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require operators to have a
process enabling a pilot to report errors and provide corrections to
the pilot's PRD record. This process would involve flagging the record
as incorrect and submitting comments explaining why that record is
incorrect. The FAA would also flag that record as ``in dispute'' if a
disagreement exists with respect to the content of the record. It would
remain ``in dispute'' until resolution of that dispute between the
pilot and an air carrier or other operator is complete.
    The FAA reorganized this section to delete proposed (a) and (b). As
the PRD Act requires the Administrator to provide an opportunity for an
individual to submit written comments correcting his or her record in
the PRD, a separate requirement in this section is not necessary and
paragraph (a) is removed. Furthermore, proposed paragraph (b) was
duplicative of proposed paragraph (c), and therefore removed.
    Paragraph (a), as adopted, requires a pilot to report any error or
inaccuracy to the PRD in a form and manner acceptable to the
Administrator. If the record was entered by a current or former
employer, the pilot can use the PRD to flag a record as incorrect. This
request will go through the PRD to the reporting entity. The PRD
administrator will flag an FAA record manually, if disputed by the
pilot, but that dispute resolution process occurs in the FAA system
where the original record resides, such as CAIS or EIS. To correct an
error or inaccuracy in a record, the pilot would need to request a
correction under the Privacy Act. For FAA records, the AC 120-68J
includes a description of the appropriate office to contact for each
type of FAA record to request correction through the Privacy Act.
    The process of adding a notation to a pilot record disputed by the
pilot is automatic. The FAA does not review requests for notation. For
discussion of further comments regarding dispute resolution, please see
Section V.C.11.

E. Other Amendments

    The FAA proposed to amend Sec.  91.1051 to replace the pilot safety
background check required by this section with compliance with part
111. The FAA instead removes Sec.  91.1051, effective upon September 9,
2024, and consolidates applicability for part 111 in Sec.  111.1. The
FAA also withdraws proposed amendments to parts 91, 121, 125, and 135,
for the same reason.
    The FAA received comments on this topic from the PlaneSense
commenters. These commenters indicated that fractional operators have
an obligation under current Sec.  91.1051 to conduct a pilot safety
background check within 90 days of hiring a pilot, and the operator
must request FAA records and records from previous employers spanning
the prior 5 years of the pilot's flight-related employment records.
These commenters note this section does not impose a recordkeeping
requirement on the fractional operator, as Sec.  91.1027 imposes that
obligation.
    Fractional operators would comply with the PRD as set forth in the
applicability of part 111. A fractional operator would begin reviewing
records in the PRD one year after the date of publication of the final
rule and continue to comply with Sec.  91.1051 where records are not
yet available in PRD until three years and 90 days after the rule.

F. Other Comments

1. Comments on Requests To Extend the Comment Period or Provide Further
Rulemaking Documents
    Several commenters, including the NBAA, Cargo Airline Association,
Ameristar, Experimental Aircraft Association, and the National Air
Transportation Association, requested that the FAA extend the public
comment period. Many of these commenters indicated they needed more
time to review the proposed rule and prepare their responses to the
many detailed questions that the FAA posed, particularly because the
proposal was published during the unprecedented COVID-19 public health
emergency, which has affected the air transportation industry.
    NBAA commented that the significant number of requests for
information by the FAA preceding the NPRM, and the contradictions
between the various documents supporting the proposal, suggests the FAA
should have published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking. NBAA
suggested developing a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking
(SNPRM) or holding a public hearing may result in a more effective
rulemaking effort and alleviate some industry concerns. For these
reasons, NBAA recommended the FAA issue a SNPRM to reflect industry
input on the FAA's list of questions.
2. FAA Response
    The FAA refers commenters to its Denial Letter for Extension of
Comment Period (FAA-2020-0246-0038), which the FAA posted to the
rulemaking docket on June 12, 2020. The FAA reiterates this rationale
and emphasizes the FAA's determination to move forward with adoption of
this rule. This final rule clarifies specific points of confusion
raised by commenters in response to the NPRM. Moreover, the FAA will
work closely with industry to ensure a common understanding of the
regulatory requirements in part 111.
3. Comments on Electronic Records, LOAs, MSpecs, and OPSpecs
    NBAA commented that, by implementing an electronic PRD, the FAA
has, by example, determined electronic records are valid and constitute
sufficient evidence of regulatory compliance. NBAA asserted if the FAA
mandates that air carriers, operators, and other entities use and
submit electronic records through the PRD but also requires
authorization to use electronic recordkeeping through LOA, MSpec, or
OpSpec, the FAA must include in its economic analysis the cost of
preparing policies and procedures for electronic recordkeeping, then
requesting authorization for the LOA, MSpec, or OpSpec, plus the
ongoing cost of maintaining electronic records, or risk establishing an
unfunded mandate.
4. FAA Response
    The FAA acknowledges receipt of this comment but notes that these
points and the associated costs are beyond the scope of this
rulemaking.

G. Comments Related to Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA received comments regarding costs associated with reporting
records, the scope of applicability of part 111, the benefits of this
rule, and the FAA's assumptions and data concerning both costs and the
Paperwork Reduction Act.
1. Comments on Costs Associated With Reporting Historical Records
    A4A stated it agrees generally with the potential benefits of the
proposed rule but asserted the FAA significantly underestimated the
costs of the rule. A4A stated that it surveyed its members to respond
to the FAA's requests for comments on the impact of the proposed rule,
but that it faced several challenges in collecting the information it
sought.
    A4A noted that in the regulatory impact analysis of the proposed
rule, the FAA states it anticipates most existing electronic record
systems can export data through XML for uploading into the PRD and that
carrier export utilities need to be configured initially to match the
expected fields of the PRD. A4A said that estimating costs for what to
report, but not how to report it, is extremely challenging, especially
given the diversity of record formats over the 15-year historical
records period. A4A described challenges such as a lack of technical
requirements for reporting records accompanying the proposal and the
absence of a pilot program.
    A4A noted that its member survey resulted in 8 out of 10 members
providing extensive information on the impact of the proposed rule,
with descriptions of how the carriers would comply, the number of full-
time employees that would be needed to comply, and cost estimates.
Those eight members included four large part 121 carriers and four mid-
size part 121 carriers. A4A estimated the average cost for a large part
121 carrier to transfer historical records electronically to be
$602,875. A4A estimated the average cost for a mid-size part 121
carrier to transfer historical records to be $175,000.
    A4A noted that its member survey revealed that almost all carriers
store electronic documents in different systems for different
categories of documents. A4A suggested carriers will have to engage a
variety of software experts to advise them on how to transfer the
information that the FAA seeks.
    Other commenters expressed concern about the cost to convert
historical records to XML. Noting that most operators have some form of
digital record such as a PDF, one commenter said allowing bulk uploads
of such records would alleviate the economic impact on small operators
substantially. The commenter also recommended allowing operators to
send PDF copies of records to the FAA, which can then convert them into
any format the FAA feels is appropriate. The commenter recommended
taking advantage of existing recordkeeping requirements, such as part
142 training center records, to populate the database and reduce the
burden on part 91 operators.
    A4A also believes that the FAA underestimated costs for the manual
entry of historical records. A4A stated that, based on its member
survey, the FAA should use the maximum estimated historical records as
the basis for determining the cost of manual entry of historical
records into the PRD because that estimate more accurately reflects the
number of manual records.
    A4A also urged the FAA to correct its cost-per-pilot estimate to
enter manual records to ensure realistic manual entry burdens are
captured. The commenter recommended the FAA use an average of 20
minutes for manual entry of a pilot training/checking record, 15
minutes to set up a new pilot in the PRD, and 10 minutes to input
manually both disciplinary records and termination events.
    A4A also commented that the regulatory impact analysis for the
proposed rule did not include costs to retrieve, search, and review
historical files and that the FAA limited the costs of manually
reporting historical records to the cost to type the data into the PRD
once it has been collected. The commenter stated this grossly
underestimates the actual burden to air carriers to report historical
data manually to the PRD, particularly for historical drug and alcohol
testing records, and the FAA should include such burden in its
analysis. A4A encouraged the FAA to reassess its cost analysis for
manually reporting drug and alcohol testing records.

    A4A estimated the number of pilots who have worked at covered
carriers since 2005 that are still alive is at least 130,000. A4A
calculated total labor costs of $540 to input a single pilot's
historical records into the PRD, then multiplied these labor costs by
130,000 pilots to arrive at an estimate of $70,200,000 in total costs
for part 121 carriers to retrieve, search, and review historical
documents and ensure sensitive information not required by the PRD is
excluded. This estimate includes both manual entry and electronic data
entry. A4A recommended that, given these substantial additional costs,
the FAA should eliminate the requirement to provide historical
documents or, in the alternative, require no more than 5 years of
historical documents from the final rule compliance date.
    An individual commented on the FAA's estimate for the time it would
take to enter a pilot's information manually, estimating instead that
it would take approximately an hour per pilot. The commenter noted it
has paper records, so it will have to find the records, sort through
years of training certificates, and then enter records going back 15
years for each pilot. The commenter noted that 40 percent of its pilots
have been employed with the company for more than 10 years. The
commenter said that if it goes back 15 years, it would have to enter
records for 251 part 121 pilots alone. The commenter noted that
entering records for these 251 pilots would take 6.3 weeks of doing
nothing but data entry. The commenter called this overly burdensome and
expensive.
    A4A recommended that the FAA adopt Alternative 4 from the initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis as the final rule.\57\ A4A stated that
Alternative 4 is the most effective option for capturing historical
records. A4A stated that this would only require accessing records
through both the PRD and PRIA for 5 years, as opposed to 2 years under
the proposed rule. A4A stated the benefit of not having to input 18
years of pilot records would outweigh the burden of accessing pilot
information through both PRIA and the PRD for three more years. ALPA
also supported Alternative 4, and quoted the PRD ARC stating pilot
records from training events accessed more than 5 years ago would be of
no value to the hiring process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ Alternative 4 would require air carriers and operators to
report present and future pilot records to the PRD, but continue to
send historical records under PRIA until the PRD has 5 years of
pilot records (by the start of 2025, the PRD would have data from
2020 to 2024), at which point PRIA could be discontinued. 85 FR
17701, March 30, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A4A also commented that it is crucial for the FAA to stand up a
working group immediately after a final rule is published. Further, A4A
noted that, even though carriers may have some historical records in
electronic format, this does not guarantee they can convert such
records for the PRD. A4A stated none of its members has its drug and
alcohol records systems connected to other systems; accordingly, the
carriers will have to configure separately each set of historical
records for reporting the PRD. A4A estimated the costs of reporting
historical records will multiply based upon the number of systems from
which an air carrier must collect and report data to the PRD.
2. FAA Response
    The FAA has updated the regulatory impact analysis of the final
rule with data A4A provided for increased costs of reporting records to
the PRD and the costs of searching, retrieving and reviewing historical
records. Details are provided in the comment responses below. The FAA
also updated the regulatory impact analysis of the final rule using the
electronic data costs referred to above for part 121 operators. The
other commenters did not submit data on the costs to convert historical
records to XML.
    The FAA made the decision not to accept PDF because of data storage
concerns and because personal information would have to be redacted;
however, as mentioned previously, the FAA will provide a means to
accomplish electronic batch upload of records. As discussed in section
V.C., the PRD Act does not permit record reporting by part 142 training
centers, as the PRD Act is restricted to entities that employed a
pilot.
    In the final rule, the FAA includes the cost for manual entry of
drug and alcohol testing, verification of NDR search, and pilot
disciplinary actions, where required. The FAA does not agree that it
should use the maximum estimated historical records as the basis for
determining the cost of manual entry of historical records. The final
rule analysis continues to use the average of minimum and maximum
estimated historical records.
    The FAA includes the cost of entering disciplinary and termination
records using 10 minutes as the time to enter each of these record
types, as suggested by A4A. The FAA does not include the cost of
setting up a pilot in the PRD for the first time, as it will occur via
an automated script from the airman registry. The FAA does not agree
with A4A's recommendation to use 20 minutes for manual entry of a pilot
training record; instead, the FAA uses an average of 4 minutes to enter
this type of record. This estimate of 4 minutes does not include the
time it might take to locate the record from the official record
keeping system. A4A appears to capture this time in its estimate of
supplemental costs, which includes the cost to retrieve, search and
review historical records. The FAA incorporated A4A's supplemental cost
of $70.2 million in the final Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA),
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
    The FAA has increased the cost of retrieving, searching, and
reviewing historical records for part 121 operators based on data
provided by A4A, as explained below. While the FAA included a
supplemental cost of reporting historical records for the NPRM, the FAA
accepted A4A's estimate that it would cost part 121 operators $70.2
million to retrieve, search, and review historical documents and ensure
sensitive information not required by the PRD is excluded. For the
final rule, the FAA updated its analysis to include this cost for part
121 operators.
    The FAA acknowledges the lower costs of Alternative 4 but believes
the technological capabilities of the PRD will, in a few years, reduce
concern over electronic upload of historical records. The FAA
considered all comments received requesting a different interpretation
of the PRD Act's requirement to include historical records and
maintains that the statute is explicit with respect to which records
must be included, as discussed in Section V.C.12.
    The preamble of this rule includes discussion regarding the plans
the FAA has for providing information to industry after publication of
the final rule, beginning with the first compliance date for submitting
a responsible person application, which is 90 days after publication of
the final rule. The FAA also commits to providing a method for
electronic transfer of records prior to the sunset of PRIA.
3. Comments on the Impact to Part 91 Operators
    GAMA, NBAA, the FL Aviation Corp., Cummins, Inc., and more than 500
individuals commented on the costs and other burdens the proposed
recordkeeping and reporting requirements would impose on part 91
operators. Most of these commenters asserted that the proposed rule
would impose significant costs and other

burdens on these operators with little-to-no associated benefits.
    GAMA commented that the administrative burden and associated cost
of recordkeeping imposed on part 91 operators, which are not currently
subject to the same recordkeeping requirements as part 121 and part 135
operators, is unreasonable because these operators typically do not
benefit from the information in the PRD.
    NBAA stated the proposed rule lacks a robust analysis of the
effects on part 91 operations and ignores many consensus
recommendations of the PRD ARC, resulting in a significant burden on
numerous small entities with no clear nexus to part 121 carrier hiring.
NBAA recommended that the FAA either remove part 91 operators from the
rule or conduct a more accurate cost-benefit analysis in accordance
with the Administrative Procedure Act and Executive Order 12866. NBAA
also disagreed with the FAA's claim that the proposal would not require
operators to collect new data for entry into the PRD and they and other
operators pointed out that part 91 operators currently have no
regulatory requirement to maintain certain records. These commenters
contended that the new recordkeeping and reporting requirements would
therefore require operators to revise completely current procedures
they have used effectively for years, which will be costly.
    NBAA also commented that the FAA considers initial compliance for
part 91 operators but includes no annual costs of compliance and
provides no insight into the assumptions that built the costs or
analysis of part 91 training and checking events per year. NBAA
asserted that the assumption that part 91 operators maintain electronic
databases is false.
    NASA's Aircraft Management Division stated that the level of data
provided to the PRD is excessive and requires a recurring enormous
effort. The commenter noted that NASA's primary records source is a
paper-based personnel training and qualification file for each pilot.
The commenter estimated that the rule's burdensome recurring data
requirement would add a significant cost to NASA of approximately $1
million annually.
    An individual commented that the FAA's cost analysis ignores the
increased cost to part 91 operators and is therefore not comparable to
the current PRIA structure, rendering it useless for cost savings
comparison. This commenter also faulted the cost analysis for not
estimating overall costs on a per user basis. The commenter questioned
whether the FAA estimated the total number of users and what this rule
would mean to each one. The commenter said it is incorrect to suggest
there is no societal cost when there is no estimate on the burden to
the individual user, especially ones who must absorb additional costs
(part 91), rather than simply increasing ticket prices to cover the
costs, as the scheduled air carriers have done.
    The FL Aviation Corp. expressed concern that the cost of
transaction requests will triple their current cost of responding to
record requests. The commenter appears to be referring to user fees.
The FL Aviation Corp. also asserted that, without any background data
or information, the FAA's cost estimate represents nothing more than
opinions or speculation and appear arbitrary, especially given that
part 91 operations have never previously been included in the records
sweep.

4. FAA Response

    The FAA has reduced substantively \58\ the reporting requirements
and therefore costs for corporate flight departments, public aircraft
operations, and air tour operators in the final rule. These operators
will only be required to provide records upon request from a hiring air
carrier, unless the records reflect termination or certain disciplinary
actions, in which case these operators must report the records
contemporaneously. In addition, air tour operators must report drug and
alcohol records contemporaneously.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ However, estimated costs the FAA includes in this final
rule are higher than those estimated in the NPRM because the FAA
considered data on part 121 costs submitted by a commenter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule required reporting only of records that the
operator had accumulated; it did not propose that operators collect new
data. The final rule as adopted also does not propose recordkeeping
requirements that diverge significantly from PRIA; therefore, the FAA
does not agree operators would have to revise current procedures, other
than to enter records to the PRD, as required by the rule that they
have accumulated.
    For the NPRM, the FAA erroneously assumed that corporate flight
departments maintain all records in electronic databases and assumed
that all records would transfer to the PRD in the first year. The FAA
has reconsidered this assumption and, in this rule, includes annual
costs to enter records manually for all operators.
    The FAA disagrees that the cost analysis ignores the increased cost
to part 91 operators. The FAA detailed these costs in the analysis of
the proposed rule and has updated them in this final rule. The FAA
estimated cost savings due to discontinuation of PRIA and the costs of
reporting records to the PRD. The FAA presents the distribution of
costs over operator types in the analysis along with an estimate of the
number of users. The FAA estimates some costs on a per record basis.
Some operators may choose to pass these additional costs on in
increased ticket prices and some may absorb these costs. Regardless,
these costs are captured in the analysis.
    This rule does not include the user fee the FAA had proposed to
include. Therefore, this rule does not estimate the cost of transaction
requests.
    The FAA documented its assumptions and sources in the analysis for
the proposed rule. When data was not available, the FAA relied on input
from subject matter experts.
5. Comments on the Benefits of the Rule
    NBAA stated all the benefits of the rule identified by the FAA
apply to part 121 and part 135 air carriers. NBAA said there are no
benefits for part 91 and part 125 operators that would be subject to
this rule, only burdens and costs.
    A4A disagreed with the FAA's assumption that one of the benefits of
the NPRM is to lower the potential of inaccurate interpretation of
pilot records by allowing for easier reading of pilot records, as the
PRIA records might sometimes be handwritten and difficult to read. A4A
said this is not a benefit of the PRD because the same concern exists
with PRIA; carriers will have to interpret the same difficult-to-read
handwritten files to comply with the PRD. A4A also identified an
additional risk of incorrect or misinterpreted information being
entered into the PRD and remaining there for the life of the pilot.
6. FAA Response
    This rule responds to a statutory requirement and was not motivated
by a purpose to benefit one particular operator type over another;
instead, Congress directed parameters for who would be reporting
entities and reviewing entities. As a result of this rule, operators
will be better prepared to make informed hiring decisions to support
aviation safety. Although files may still be difficult to read, the FAA
assumes that it is not as difficult for an operator to interpret its
own historical records as it would be for an operator to interpret
another operator's historical records.

7. Other Comments on Assumptions and Data
    A4A stated the FAA must revise its cost analysis to correct the
assumption that if a carrier has the FAA's approval for a computer-
based recordkeeping system with OpSpec A025,\59\ then all records that
carrier must upload to the PRD are already in an electronic format. A4A
noted that, while a carrier must obtain A025 to use an electronic
recordkeeping system to ensure the same data integrity used in a paper
system, A025 authorization does not mean that every carrier system is
electronic. A4A said its member survey revealed that many human
resource files containing disciplinary records or separation records
are paper-based. Furthermore, A4A noted that even carriers that store
human resource records electronically responded that they would need to
enter information manually into the PRD because human resources files
contain sensitive information that cannot be shared.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ OpSpec A025--Extension of Due Date for Required Action by
Notice N 8900.368, OpSpec/MSpec/TSpec/LOA A025, Electronic
Signatures, Electronic Recordkeeping Systems, and Electronic Manual
Systems, available at https://fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/notices/n8900_395.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A4A noted the FAA's estimate excludes transition upgrade training,
which the FAA explained is because it does not know how frequently
pilots train on new aircraft, but expects such training is infrequent.
A4A stated the results of its member survey indicate that a mid-size
and large part 121 carrier averages between 1,200 and 3,000 transition
training events per year. A4A asked the FAA to amend the analysis to
reflect this omitted data to assess the true impact and cost of this
rulemaking.
8. FAA Response
    The FAA acknowledges some records it assumed to be entered
electronically might have to be entered manually and the costs of
manual entry may be underestimated for this reason. It is not clear
from the A4A comment how many of these events will result in records
required for the PRD. A transition-training curriculum consists of
multiple training events. This number varies by approved training
program. An event might be a ground school session or simulator
session. All the events together make up the curriculum. After the
pilot finishes all the events, they are considered to have completed
the training curriculum. The PRD only accepts completion (or
withdrawal) of the training curriculum. It does not accept records of
each event that make up the curriculum. In other words, the PRD accepts
one record documenting that the pilot finished the curriculum, not
multiple records detailing each event in the curriculum. A4A's comment
is unclear concerning whether the basis of the estimates is the count
of transition curricula or the number of events inside the curriculum.
9. Comments on Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Issues
    One commenter stated that mandating dual recordkeeping for 2 years
and 90 days post-implementation effectively doubles the workload for
covered employers, which does not meet the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act. Another commenter remarked generally that the
requirements of the proposed rule seems to contradict the purpose of
the Paperwork Reduction Act.
10. FAA Response
    PRIA is maintained until the PRD is populated with the minimal
records necessary to ensure that hiring air carriers have access to the
records they need and that no gap exists. However, if the operator
updates PRD with records before PRIA is phased out the operator does
not have to report records via PRIA. There should be no dual reporting
requirements, because an operator would provide records via either PRIA
or PRD until PRIA is phased out. The FAA assessed the baseline
incremental change in costs in the analysis of the proposed rule,
noting that cost savings do not begin until PRIA is phased out. In
addition, the FAA acknowledged that the analysis in the NPRM
potentially overestimates costs as operators can transition to PRD
before the date when PRIA is discontinued, yet cost savings are not
captured until that date.

VI. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct
that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon
a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation
justify its costs. In addition, DOT rulemaking procedures in subpart B
of 49 CFR part 5 instruct DOT agencies to issue a regulation upon a
reasoned determination that benefits exceed costs. Second, the
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies
to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities.
Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from
setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign
commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, this Act
requires agencies to consider international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies
to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other
effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate
likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of
1995). The FAA provides a detailed Regulatory Impact Analysis of this
final rule in the docket for this rulemaking. This portion of the
preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this
rule.
    In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined this rule: (1)
Has benefits that justify its costs; (2) is not an economically
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866; (3) is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) will have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities; (5) will not
create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States; and (6) will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or
tribal governments, or on the private sector by exceeding the threshold
identified previously. These analyses are summarized in this section.

A. Regulatory Evaluation

1. Benefits
    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 and complete
pilot records available and by making those records accessible
electronically. The rule requires use of the PRD that includes
information maintained by the FAA concerning current airman
certificates with any associated type ratings and current medical
certificates, including any limitations or restrictions to those
certificates, airman practical test failures, and summaries of legal
enforcement actions. The PRD will contain air carrier, operator, and
FAA records on an individual's performance as a pilot for the life of
the individual that could be used as a hiring tool in an air carrier's
decision-making process for pilot employment.

    By requiring that pilot records be entered into the PRD and
reviewed by the hiring air carrier, this rule will:
     Promote aviation safety by facilitating operators'
consideration of pilot skills and performance when making hiring
decisions by using the most accurate and complete pilot records
available and by making those records accessible electronically. As
previously discussed, a single algorithm does not exist that can tell
the potential employer whether it should hire a pilot based on a ratio
of satisfactory and unsatisfactory flight checks. However, providing
this information electronically about the airman will assist the
potential employer in making a hiring decision in a timelier and less
cumbersome manner than is possible with PRIA.
     Allow for speedier retrieval of pilot records from the PRD
than is possible with PRIA. Under PRIA, the hiring air carrier requests
records from sometimes multiple carriers and waits to receive the
records. With the PRD, the operator will merely log on to the database
and, in most cases, search for the records.
     Lower the potential of inaccurate interpretation of pilot
records by allowing for easier reading of pilot records, as the PRIA
records might sometimes be handwritten and difficult to read.
     Allow for easier storage and access of pilot records than
PRIA.
     Allow pilots to consent to release and review of records.
2. Cost Savings
    This rule results in recurring annual cost savings to industry
because the PRD will 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
pilots' records to be provided. Under the PRD, most of this process
occurs electronically. Over the 10-year regulatory period after the
effective date of the rule (2021-2030), the present value cost savings
to industry is 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 over the
10-year period of analysis or about $3.2 million annualized. After the
discontinuance three years and 90 days after the rule is published, the
annual recurring industry cost savings will more than offset the
recurring annual costs of the rule.
3. Costs
i. Net Regulatory Costs of the Rule
    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. The FAA will incur costs of the rule related to the operations
and maintenance of the PRD. Over a 10-year period of analysis (2021-
2030), the 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, the rule results in present value net costs of about
$71.0 million or about $8.3 million annualized.
    The cost driver of the rule is the reporting cost for air carriers
to upload historical records before the discontinuance of PRIA three
years and 90 days after the effective date of the rule. These up-front
costs are discounted less in terms of present values than the recurring
cost savings that occur after the discontinuance of PRIA. These
historical record reporting costs represent about 87 percent of the
total costs of the rule.\60\ As discussed previously, the statutory
requirements limit FAA's discretion to reduce the requirements for
operators to report historical records. This limits the FAA's ability
to reduce the associated costs. However, the cost savings from the
discontinuance of PRIA are expected to pay for these high upfront costs
over the long run as the PRD becomes widely used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ Based on the Regulatory Impact Analysis of the final rule,
about 88% of the historical record reporting costs are incurred by
part 121 operators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. FAA Costs To Develop the PRD
    In addition to future regulatory costs, the FAA has incurred costs
to prototype and develop the PRD since 2010.\61\ From 2010 to 2020, the
FAA estimates the present value PRD development costs are about $14.1
million or $1.5 million annualized using a seven percent discount rate.
Using a three percent discount rate, the present value PRD development
costs are about $18.0 million over the same period or about $2.4
million annualized. In the context of analyzing the impacts of the
rule, these are ``sunk'' costs that already occurred and cannot be
recovered. These sunk costs are contrasted with prospective costs,
which are future regulatory costs of the rule. The FAA presents these
sunk costs to inform the public of the total PRD development and
regulatory costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ On August 1, 2010, Congress directed the Administrator to
establish the PRD (Pub. L. 111-216, Section 203 (49 U.S.C.
44703(i)). OMB Circular A-4 asks agencies to consider costs of
mandates based on a pre-statutory baseline. The FAA provides
discussion of these costs to inform the total PRD development and
regulatory costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Summary of Benefits, Costs, and Cost Savings
    The following table summarizes the benefits, costs, and cost
savings of the rule to industry and the FAA.

          Table 3--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 present                   10-Year present
                  Category                       value (7%)    Annualized (7%)     value (3%)    Annualized (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 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.

5. Scope of Affected Entities
    The entities affected by this final rule are: Part 119 certificate
holders, fractional ownership programs, air tour operators, corporate
flight departments, and PAO, as well as individual pilots.
6. Changes to the Regulatory Impact Analysis Since the Proposed Rule
    The FAA updated its analysis for changes incorporated in the final
rule and additional information and data identified during the comment
period. The following is a summary of these changes.
     The analysis no longer includes the impacts of user fees.
Industry will not incur user fees under the final rule. For the
proposed rule, the FAA estimated the 10-year present value of the user
fees were about $13.2 million or $1.9 million annualized using a 7
percent discount rate in 2016 constant dollars. Using a 3 percent
discount rate, the present value of the user fees were about $16.3
million over 10 years or about $1.9 million annualized.
     The analysis reflects reduced PRD reporting requirements
that reduce industry costs in the final rule compared to the proposal
for air tour operators, public aircraft operations and corporate flight
departments.
     The analysis incorporated additional data from commenters
to update costs for reporting historical records to the PRD, increasing
the estimates of costs under the final rule as compared to the
preliminary analysis of the proposed rule. In the proposed rule and the
preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis, the FAA requested comments and
additional data on costs and data uncertainties.
     Reporting of records begins one year after the rule is
published rather than beginning in the year of publication of the rule,
providing more time for operators to prepare to report.
     Reporting of historical records back to year 2015 occurs
in year 2 and the remainder in year 3, rather than an even distribution
over 2 years.
     The analysis uses updated wage data.
    The following table compares the net costs of the proposed rule as
published, the net cost of the proposed rule with updates for cost data
received from public comments, and the costs of the final rule with
changes in requirements to reduce costs in addition to updates for cost
data received from public comments.

                         Table 4--Comparison of Net Costs: Proposed Rule and Final Rule
                                                   [$Million]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Net costs                              Proposed rule   Proposed rule    Final rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10-Year Present Value (7%)......................................            12.8            80.8            67.0
Annualized (7%).................................................             1.8            11.5             9.5
10-Year Present Value (3%)......................................            11.5            87.8            71.0
Annualized (3%).................................................             1.4            10.3             8.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Updated for data from public comments.
+ Updated for changes in requirements and data from public comments.

    The FAA analyzed the impacts of this rule based on the best
publicly available data at the time of this writing. The FAA
acknowledges uncertainty exists in estimating the costs of this rule,
given the variety of operators and record-keeping practices.
    The analysis of this rule reflects operator and industry conditions
that predate the COVID-19 public health emergency. While there is
currently a lack of data to forecast the timing of recovery from COVID-
19 impacts relative to implementation of the rule, the analysis
provides information on the types of impacts that may be experienced in
the future as the economy returns to baseline levels.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the Agency determines that it will, Section 604 of the Act
requires agencies to prepare a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
describing the impact of final rules on small entities.
    The FAA has determined this final rule will have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore,
under the requirements in Section 604 of the RFA, the Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis must address:
     A statement of the need for, and objectives of, the rule;
     A statement of the significant issues raised by the public
comments in

response to the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, a statement of
the assessment of the Agency of such issues, and a statement of any
changes made in the proposed rule as a result of such comments;
     The response of the Agency to any comments filed by the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in
response to the proposed rule, and a detailed statement of any change
made to the proposed rule in the final rule as a result of the
comments;
     A description of and an estimate of the number of small
entities to which the rule will apply or an explanation of why no such
estimate is available;
     A description of the projected reporting, recordkeeping,
and other compliance requirements of the rule, including an estimate of
the classes of small entities which will be subject to the requirement
and the type of professional skills necessary for preparation of the
report or record; and
     A description of the steps the Agency has taken to
minimize the significant economic impact on small entities consistent
with the stated objectives of applicable statutes, including a
statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the
alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other
significant alternatives to the rule considered by the Agency which
affect the impact on small entities was rejected.
1. Statement of the Need for and Objectives of the Rule
    Following the Continental Flight 3407 accident, Congress enacted
the Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of
2010, Public Law 111-216 (Aug. 1, 2010).\62\ Section 203 of the PRD Act
required the FAA to establish an electronic pilot records database and
provided for the subsequent sunset of PRIA. The PRD Act requires the
FAA to ensure the database contains records from various sources
related to individual pilot performance and to issue implementing
regulations. It also amended PRIA by requiring the FAA to ensure
operators evaluate pilot records in the database prior to hiring
individuals as pilots. Congress has since enacted the FAA Extension,
Safety, and Security Act of 2016 (FESSA), Public Law 114-190 (July 15,
2016). Section 2101 of FESSA required the FAA to establish an
electronic pilot records database by April 30, 2017. This final rule
implements those statutory mandates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ Referred to as ``the PRD Act'' in this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statement of the Significant Issues Raised by the Public Comments in
Response to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, a Statement of
the Assessment of the Agency of Such Issues, and a Statement of Any
Changes Made in the Proposed Rule as a Result of Such Comments
    A significant issue commenters raised was the concern that the
proposed rule would impose significant burdens on small businesses with
little-to-no associated benefits or could put small companies or flight
departments out of business. Commenters were concerned about corporate
flight departments and public aircraft operations, which the FAA
considered along with air tour operators as potential gateway operators
(i.e., operators from which pilots would transfer to air carriers).
Commenters, in addition to describing the excessive burden that the
rule would impose, stated that it was infrequent that a pilot would
leave employment with these types of operators to seek employment with
an air carrier. The FAA assessed these concerns and reduced the burden
for these operators by requiring only that these operators report
records upon request from a hiring air carrier, with an exception
requiring that they report contemporaneous termination records and
certain disciplinary records. Contemporaneous reporting of drug and
alcohol records by air tour operators would also be required, even in
the absence of a request for them.
3. The Response of the Agency to Any Comments Filed by the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in Response
to the Proposed Rule, and a Detailed Statement of Any Change Made to
the Proposed Rule in the Final Rule as a Result of the Comments
    The Agency received no comments from the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the Small Business Administration.
4. A Description of and an Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to
Which the Rule Will Apply or an Explanation of Why No Such Estimate Is
Available
    This rule will affect substantial numbers of small entities
operating under parts 91K, 121 and 135, air tour operators, entities
conducting public aircraft operations, and corporate flight
departments. There are approximately four dozen small part 121 carriers
and two thousand small part 135 carriers and operators. All part 125
operators are small. Air tour operators are also typically small. These
operators may consist of a couple of pilots flying less than five
passengers per air tour. The FAA estimates that all fractional
ownerships are large with revenues exceeding $16.5 million. The FAA
also estimates that entities conducting PAO are associated with large
governmental jurisdictions. The FAA assumes that any corporation that
could afford a corporate flight department would have in excess of
$16.5 million in revenues and is therefore a large entity. The table
below offers more details on the operator types affected.

                                   Table 5--Summary of Small Entities Impacted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Number of                                         SBA size
          Type/part               entities             NAICS code \63\              standard           Size
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 121 Air Carriers........              76  481111--Scheduled Passenger Air  Less than 1,500  45 small, 31
                                                Transportation; 481112--         employees.       large.
                                                Scheduled Freight Air
                                                Transportation; 481211--
                                                Nonscheduled Chartered
                                                Passenger Air Transportation;
                                                481212--Nonscheduled Chartered
                                                Freight Air Transportation.
Part 135 Air Carriers and               2,053  481111--Scheduled Passenger Air  Less than 1,500  2050 small, 3
 Operators.                                     Transportation; 481112--         employees.       large.
                                                Scheduled Freight Air
                                                Transportation; 481211--
                                                Nonscheduled Chartered
                                                Passenger Air Transportation;
                                                481212--Nonscheduled Chartered
                                                Freight Air Transportation.
Part 125 Operators...........              70  481219--Other Nonscheduled Air   Less than        All small.
                                                Transportation.                  $16.5M in
                                                                                revenues.

Part 91.147 Air Tour                    1,091  481219--Other Nonscheduled Air   Less than        All small.
 Operators.                                     Transportation.                  $16.5M in
                                                                                revenues.
Part 91.K Fractional                        7  481219--Other Nonscheduled Air   Less than        All large.
 Ownership.                                     Transportation.                  $16.5M in
                                                                                revenues.
Public Use Aircraft..........             323  481219--Other Nonscheduled Air   Large            All large.
                                                Transportation.                  Governmental
                                                                                Jurisdictions.
Corporate Flight Departments.           1,413  481219--Other Nonscheduled Air   Less than        All large.
                                                Transportation.                  $16.5M in
                                                                                revenues.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Table Note: Size information is based on data available from eVID (FAA Management Information System, Vital
  Information Subsystem).

    While this rule will affect a substantial number of small entities,
the FAA maintains that small entities will be affected to a lesser
extent than large entities. This is because costs are a function of
size. For instance, costs to enter data on pilots manually depends on
the number of pilots who work and have worked for the operator. Both
air tour operators and part 125 operators are comprised entirely of
small businesses. The FAA estimated that an average of about 3 pilots
work for an air tour operator and 10 pilots for a part 125 operator.
Air tour operators would not be required to report historical records
and would incur a cost of $43 per operator per year (or about $14 per
pilot per year), and part 125 operators would incur a cost of $725 per
operator (or about $72 per pilot) per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ For definitions of the NAICS codes please refer to 2017
NAICS Manual, pg. 380 https://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/2017NAICS/2017_NAICS_Manual.pdf. Also, please note that these
definitions may not completely align with the definitions set out in
the FAA Code of Federal Regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. A Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements of the Rule, Including an Estimate of the
Classes of Small Entities Which Will Be Subject to the Requirement and
the Type of Professional Skills Necessary for Preparation of the Report
or Record
    The rule requires air carriers, certain 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. The
records entered into the PRD include those related to: Pilot training,
qualification, proficiency, or professional competence of the
individual, including comments and evaluations made by a check pilot;
drug and alcohol testing; disciplinary action; release from employment
or resignation, termination, or disqualification with respect to
employment; and the verification of a search date of the National
Driver Register. Requirements for corporate flight departments, air
tour operators and public aircraft operations, many of which are small
businesses, have been reduced in the final rule to only require
reporting of most records upon request. Contemporaneous reporting must
occur for records concerning termination and disciplinary actions for
public aircraft and air tour operators and corporate flight
departments. In addition, drug and alcohol records for air tour
operators are also always required. The types of professional skills
needed are clerical skills for data entry, computer skills for
electronic data transfer, management pilot skills for reviewing and
summarizing pilot records, training and development skills, and human
resource management skills.
6. A Description of the Steps the Agency Has Taken To Minimize the
Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities Consistent With the
Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes, Including a Statement of the
Factual, Policy, and Legal Reasons for Selecting the Alternative
Adopted in the Final Rule and Why Each One of the Other Significant
Alternatives to the Rule Considered by the Agency Which Affect the
Impact on Small Entities Was Rejected
    By reducing reporting requirements on public aircraft and air tour
operators and corporate flight departments, many of which are small
businesses, the Agency has minimized the significant economic impact on
small entities. This does not contradict the PRD Act.
    The FAA considered the following four alternatives in Regulatory
Flexibility Determination section of the proposed rule. In Alternative
1, the FAA considered requiring all of the past pilot historical data.
This alternative was rejected because the FAA determined the proposed
requirement would be sufficient to comply with the statute. In
Alternative 2, the FAA considered other options for the form and manner
in which historical records could be submitted to the PRD by operators
employing pilots. These options included permitting the submission of
records in portable document format (PDF), JPEG, bitmap (BMP), or other
similar electronic file formats; the submission of records using coded
XML; or the submission of specified information through direct manual
data entry. The FAA rejected this alternative because it would result
in extraneous and possibly protected or sensitive information to be
submitted to the PRD, could impose a burden on the FAA to review, and
is beyond the FAA does not think Congress intended PRD to be a
repository of all the information available on a pilot. In Alternative
3, the FAA considered interpreting the PRD Act broadly and requiring
all employers of pilots to comply with the proposed PRD requirements,
regardless of whether the information would be useful to hiring air
carriers or not. The FAA rejected this alternative because it
interpreted the requirement to apply to those most likely to employ
pilots who might subsequently apply to become air carrier pilots. In
Alternative 4, the FAA considered requiring operators report present
and future pilot records to the PRD, but continue to send historical
records under PRIA until the PRD has 5 years of pilot records, at which
point PRIA could be discontinued. The FAA rejected this because the
lack of a singular database would be detrimental to the purpose of the
rulemaking and diminish efficiency of review of pilot records by
employers who would have to access records through both PRIA and PRD.
At the time of the NPRM, the FAA presented Alternative 4 as a
potentially legally permissible option, but on further review,
determined that this was not the case.
    Below is a more detailed description of Alternative 2 and the
reasons it was

rejected. This alternative might have affected the impact on small
entities.
    The FAA considered options for the form and manner in which
historical records could be submitted to the PRD by air carriers and
operators employing pilots. These alternative options included
permitting the submission of records in portable document format (PDF),
JPEG, bitmap (BMP), or other similar electronic file formats; the
submission of records using coded XML; or the submission of specified
information through direct manual data entry.
    While the submission of records in PDF, JPEG, BMP, or other similar
electronic file formats might be most expedient and least costly \64\
for some air carriers and operators, the FAA rejected this option for
multiple reasons. First, the PRD ARC highlighted an issue with the
contents of historical records, indicating that many historical records
maintained by the aviation industry contain information ``far outside''
the scope of the PRD. The acceptance of such file formats (e.g., PDF,
JPEG, or BMP) would allow a large volume of extraneous data to be
submitted to the PRD, possibly including protected or sensitive
information on individuals or an air carrier or operator. The FAA would
be required to review each individual pilot record and redact
information as appropriate. This review may cause the availability of
the uploaded records to be delayed until such time that the FAA could
redact inappropriate information, if any existed within the file.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ Submitting PDF, JPEG, BMP or similar electronic formats
might be less costly because the operator would not have to
transcribe records from one format to another.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the PRD should serve as an effective tool to assist an
air carrier or operator in making hiring decisions, not as a catch-all
repository for all existing information maintained by employers of
pilots, or as a replacement for existing air carrier and operator
recordkeeping systems. If an employer transmitted scanned documents or
photographs of a pilot's record to the PRD, a hiring employer could be
overwhelmed by the amount of information provided for review, some of
which might not be relevant to the hiring decision and could impede the
hiring employer's ability to consider relevant information quickly and
efficiently.
    The final alternative adopted is what was proposed in the NPRM with
changes, one of which reduces record reporting requirements for PAO,
air tour operators, and corporate flight departments. The factual,
legal, and policy reasons for the alternative adopted in the final rule
are found in the preamble discussion preceding this section.

C. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also
requires consideration of international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. This rule
addresses a Congressional mandate to promote the safety of the American
public and it does not create an unnecessary obstacle to foreign
commerce.

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.''
    The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155.0
million in lieu of $100 million. This rule does not contain such a
mandate; therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Unfunded
Mandates Assessment Reform Act do not apply.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
agencies to consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. According to the 1995
amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act (5 CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an
agency may not collect or sponsor the collection of information, nor
may it impose an information collection requirement unless it displays
a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
    This action contains amendments to the existing information
collection requirements previously approved under OMB Control Number
2120-0607. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3507(d)), the FAA has submitted these information collection
amendments to OMB for its review.
    Summary: The rule requires part 119 certificate holders, 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. The records entered into
the PRD include those related to: Pilot training, qualification,
proficiency, or professional competence of the individual, including
comments and evaluations made by a check pilot; drug and alcohol
testing; disciplinary action; release from employment or resignation,
termination, or disqualification with respect to employment; and the
verification of a query of the National Driver Register.
    Use: The information collected in accordance with 44703(i) and
maintained in the Pilot Records Database will be used by hiring air
carriers to evaluate the qualification of an individual prior to making
a hiring determination for a pilot in accordance with 44703(i)(1).
    The FAA summarizes the changes in burden hours and costs by subpart
relative to the interim compliance dates of the rule. As previously
discussed, air carriers and other operators currently comply with PRIA.
The publication of this rule begins the transition to use of the PRD.
For a modest duration of time, continued compliance with PRIA is
required, to ensure appropriate, complete transition. The FAA also made
changes to the regulatory text for compliance dates and added interim
compliance markers in order to facilitate a smooth transition. These