the NPRM published, the FAA stated that in order to replicate the high
altitude and low energy handling characteristics desired, the FFS
should represent a swept-wing transport category airplane with a
maximum gross takeoff weight of 50,000 pounds or greater. The FAA did
not propose this standard in the regulatory text. Despite receiving
significant comment on the training topics listed in the AC as well as
what level of device would be appropriate, the FAA received only one
comment--which was supportive--regarding the proposed takeoff weight or
wing design of the type of airplane the FFS should represent. As part
of the evaluation of the FFS training topics and learning objectives,
the FAA reviewed all of the approved FFSs under 14 CFR part 60
including the associated weights of the aircraft they represent. Based
on that review, the FAA has determined an FFS representing an aircraft
with a maximum takeoff weight of at least 40,000 pounds is necessary to
meet the objectives of the ATP CTP.
    The weight of the aircraft the simulator represents is an important
factor in ensuring handling characteristics of a typical transport
aircraft. The 40,000 pound minimum requirement will ensure the device
can replicate the lower performance margins and handling qualities
inherent in transport category aircraft when being operated near their
maximum operating weight at altitudes near their service ceiling.
Critical concepts such as high speed slowdowns and approach to stall
recoveries, which can take thousands of feet to recover at high
altitudes, cannot be achieved in lighter aircraft types with higher
thrust-to-weight ratios. The FAA notes that 40,000 pounds generally
captures most regional aircraft including larger turboprops like the
Bombardier DHC-8-400. To ensure that the objectives of the ATP CTP are
met, the FAA has incorporated the weight requirement from the AC into
Sec.  61.156. Due to the potential for differing interpretations
associated with the terms ``swept-wing'' or ``straight wing,'' the FAA
has decided to remove that language from the FSTD requirements. The
weight requirements described above and listed in the final regulatory
language will produce the desired handling qualities sought in order to
achieve the objectives of the course.
    In response to commenters' concerns over the lack of sufficient
number of training devices to deliver the ATP CTP, currently there are
407 FAA-evaluated Level C or higher FFS devices that replicate aircraft
with a maximum takeoff weight at or exceeding 40,000 pounds. These
devices represent 98% of all Level C and D FFSs that have been approved
by the FAA. The FAA has evaluated the average number of ATP certificate
applicants per year over the last 10 years (5,500), compared to the
number of devices (81 FTDs and 407 FFSs) defined by the rule and
recommended for use in the ATP CTP. Being conservative, the FAA assumed
that all 10 hours of FSTD training would occur in Level C or higher
FFSs. Assuming each FFS is capable of five 4-hour simulator periods per
day (allowing for one 4-hour maintenance period per day), the U.S.
inventory of these FFSs offers over 700,000 simulator periods. The
5,500 ATP certificate applicants will require 16,500 FFS periods from
the U.S. inventory--less than 2% of available simulator time. Use of
FTDs in the course will only improve availability. The AC suggests the
FTD should replicate multicrew aircraft and be equipped with a flight
management system (FMS) and autoflight. Currently, 68% of FAA-evaluated
Level 4 or higher FTDs (a total of 81 FTDs) replicate the desired
aircraft as defined by AC 61-138. Therefore, the FAA has determined
even with moderate usage for non ATP CTP training, there is ample
inventory of available FSTD time to accommodate the requirements of the
course.
    Finally, the FAA has decided to allow for consideration of a
deviation from the weight requirement set forth in Sec.  61.156. The
FAA established a baseline weight because it believes that having all
FFSs representing aircraft weighing 40,000 pounds or more allows for
adequate demonstration of the learning objectives described in AC 61-
138. The FAA recognizes, however, that there may be FFSs that represent
an aircraft weighing less than 40,000 pounds that may be capable of
replicating the lower performance margins and handling qualities
desired at higher altitudes to meet the learning objectives of the
course. If a training provider seeks to use a device that does not meet
the weight criteria set forth in Sec.  61.156, it must apply for a
deviation. In considering a deviation request, the Air Transportation
Division, the National Simulator Program, and the certificate holder's
assigned principal inspector or TCPM will work together to determine if
the training platform ensures quality, effective training for ATP
applicants and provides an equivalent level of safety.
d. FSTD Cost
    As reflected in the final regulatory evaluation, the cost to
provide the training is estimated to be equivalent across all possible
training providers. Although part 121, 135, 141 and 142 certificate
holders may sponsor a simulator under part 60, there is no requirement
to own a simulator. Many part 121 and part 135 certificate holders
currently utilize simulation for training without the ownership and
maintenance of the devices. It is common practice for many air carriers
to enter into agreements with other carriers and part 142 training
centers to lease time in FSTDs. Additionally, there is no requirement
to deliver the ATP CTP training program, and each certificate holder
must individually determine if providing the course best meets its
needs and ability. Although the FAA considered cost when aligning the
appropriate device to the training task, meeting the learning objective
was the paramount consideration.
5. FAA Knowledge Test for an ATP Certificate
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to revise the aeronautical knowledge
areas in Sec.  61.155 to incorporate the new knowledge areas in the ATP
CTP. We noted that such a revision would result in changes to the ATP
knowledge test. Commenters such as IATA and the IFL Group believed the
current ATP knowledge test is inadequate. Commenters assert the current
preparatory products available to applicants of the knowledge test only
ensure rapid rote memorization of the material and not knowledge
retention. The FAA concurs and has determined academic knowledge gained
and evaluated in a classroom setting, reinforced with demonstration and
experience in an FSTD, and then validated by a revised written
knowledge test gives the applicant the

best chance of knowledge retention. This knowledge will allow the
student to perform more effectively upon entering an air carrier
environment--the ultimate goal of the Act.
    The FAA also proposed to extend the validity period for the
knowledge test for an ATP certificate to five years in consideration of
the applicant's time and financial commitment to the ATP CTP. The FAA
considered the extension appropriate due to the proposed elimination of
the ability for air carrier pilots to use expired knowledge tests. The
FAA received no comments on this proposal. In the final rule, FAA has
retained the five-year validity period for the ATP knowledge test only
for those pilots who pass the knowledge test after having completed the
ATP CTP--meaning any test passed after July 31, 2014. The FAA has also
retained the provision that allows pilots employed by certificate
holders in parts 121, 125, or 135 to use expired knowledge tests. As
set forth in Sec.  61.39, pilots employed in parts 125 and 135 may use
an expired knowledge test if they have completed the ATP CTP and the
operator's approved pilot-in-command training or checking program. New
hire pilots in part 121 operations may use an expired knowledge test if
they have completed the ATP CTP and the operator's initial training
program.\15\ These pilots employed by air carriers are subject to
additional training and evaluation requirements that will ensure that
they have a continued understanding of the general concepts of the ATP
CTP. If an applicant outside of an air carrier environment fails to
take the practical test within five years of taking the knowledge test,
he or she must retake the knowledge test to validate retention of the
subject areas of the ATP CTP. The FAA has modified Sec.  61.35 to make
clear that a person may not take the knowledge test for the ATP
certificate with an airplane category multiengine class rating until
the person is 18 years of age.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ As set forth in Sec.  61.39(b), the knowledge test results
for pilots who pass the knowledge test before August 2014--meaning
they have not completed the ATP CTP--will expire 24 months after the
date the test was passed. These pilots may not use an expired
knowledge test to take the practical test even if they are employed
by an air carrier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, as set forth in existing Sec.  61.49, those applicants who
fail the knowledge test for the ATP certificate after completing the
ATP CTP are required to receive the necessary remedial training from an
approved ATP CTP training provider and receive an endorsement before
retaking the knowledge test.
6. Credit Toward Air Carrier Training Programs
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed that the ATP CTP would be a basic
certification requirement, not an air carrier training program
requirement. This position was consistent with the provision in the Act
that directed the FAA to modify the ATP certificate to require the
specific training previously discussed in this final rule. The FAA
specifically asked commenters whether changes or reductions could be
made to a part 121 air carrier training program based on the proposed
content of the ATP CTP. There were 27 respondents who indicated that
air carriers could either incorporate the ATP CTP into their initial
program or reduce initial training hours based on the air carrier
providing the ATP CTP. Whereas most of the respondents were favorable
to air carriers offering the course, commenters were split on the issue
of reducing an air carrier's initial training program as a result of
the ATP CTP. FlightSafety and Aerosim supported a reduction of initial
training if additional subjects were covered by the ATP CTP. RAA
indicated that reductions to air carrier flight training programs based
on the proposed content of required ATP CTP would be difficult because
the content of the ATP CTP was more generic than air carrier training.
A4A stated ``a review of initial training should be accomplished''
without further explanation for why such a review should occur.
Ameriflight claimed there is no legal basis for air carriers to provide
part 61 training.
    Although part 121 and part 135 operators may elect to offer this
training for their pilots, it would remain separate from part 121 and
part 135 training requirements. Because the proposed ATP CTP is part of
the basic certification requirements for an ATP certificate, air
carriers who elect to offer this training would be required to provide
the course to their pilots prior to beginning initial training. The FAA
proposed that principal operations inspectors may approve a reduction
of hours in an air carrier's initial training program based on material
taught in the ATP CTP. However, because the ATP CTP requirements are
basic certification requirements, these hours could not be reduced
based on the contents of an air carrier's initial training program.
    The FAA agrees with many commenters that the initial flight
training should not be reduced because type-specific and operator-
specific training is critical in the development of air carrier pilots.
The FAA conducted a review of the ground training required for initial
training in part 121, subpart N. The general subjects that are listed
in Sec.  121.419(a)(1) contain many of the more basic knowledge
requirements now addressed by the ATP CTP.
    The FAA has determined that some reductions in initial training for
those more generic items listed in Sec.  121.419(a)(1) can occur.
However, in place of requiring POI approval for these reductions, as
was proposed in the NPRM, the FAA has decided to amend the general
subject areas of initial training for those air carrier new hire pilots
who have completed the ATP CTP prior to initial training. As these
general subjects will now be taught in the ATP CTP, it will raise the
baseline knowledge for all new hire pilots entering part 121
operations. This change will allow for more air carrier specific
training to occur in initial training while allowing for reductions in
the required program hours. The FAA notes that, until August 1, 2016--
the date that all knowledge test results completed without completion
of the ATP CTP will have expired--air carrier training classes could be
comprised of some pilots who have completed the ATP CTP and some pilots
who have not completed the course.
    With regard to Ameriflight's comment regarding the impropriety of
air carriers providing training that results in part 61 certification,
the FAA is unclear of the basis of Amerifight's confusion. Regulations
have recognized part 61 certification events for ATP certification and
type ratings through air carrier training programs for many years.
7. Additional Course Requirements
    The FAA has added provisions to new Sec. Sec.  121.410, 135.336,
and 142.54 to ensure that certificate holders maintain certain
standards for the ATP CTP. First, there is a provision in the final
rule that prevents certificate holders from issuing graduation
certificates unless a student has satisfactorily completed all of the
training requirements for the ATP CTP. Second, the FAA is requiring
certificate holders to establish a mechanism that insures continued
evaluation of the ATP CTP to guarantee that training techniques,
procedures, and standards are acceptable to the Administrator. These
requirements are in addition to the administrative requirements that
are already contained in the various rule parts. Because part 141 pilot
schools currently have similar requirements for training courses and
are required to renew their certificates every two years, no provisions
have been added to that part.

E. ATP Certificate With Restricted Privileges (Sec.  61.160)

1. Public Law and NPRM
    Section 217 of the Act mandates that an applicant for an ATP
certificate have ``at least 1,500 flight hours.'' The section gave the
FAA discretion to permit applicants to obtain an ATP certificate with
fewer than the minimum 1,500 hours if they have completed ``specific
academic training courses,'' \16\ as determined by the Administrator.
The Act permitted a reduction only upon a determination by the
Administrator that the courses would ``enhance safety more than
requiring the pilot to fully comply with the flight hours
requirement.''\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ The Act specified that these training courses must be
beyond the additional training required by the Act itself. In other
words, the new training mandated by the Act could not be a basis for
a reduction in flight hours below 1,500 hours.
    \17\ Current regulations do not define the term ``flight
hours;'' therefore, the FAA assumes that the 1,500 flight hours
referenced in the Act represents the 1,500 hours total time as a
pilot currently required by Sec.  61.159.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the discretion afforded to the Administrator in section
217, the FAA proposed a new section, Sec.  61.160,which set forth two
alternative flight hour requirements for an ATP certificate with
airplane category multiengine class rating based on academic
experience. Specifically, the FAA proposed to permit military pilots
who have graduated from an Armed Forces undergraduate pilot training
school to obtain an ATP certificate with 750 total flight hours and
graduates of four-year aviation degree programs with integrated flight
training to obtain an ATP certificate with 1,000 total flight hours.
    The FAA proposed to limit the privileges of any pilot who obtains
an ATP certificate under the aeronautical experience requirements of
new Sec.  61.160. As set forth in the NRPM, a pilot holding an ATP
certificate with fewer than 1,500 hours (an R-ATP certificate) would
not be permitted to act as PIC in part 121 operations or as PIC in
operations conducted under Sec.  91.1053 and Sec.  135.243--the only
operations under parts 91 and 135 that require the PIC to hold an ATP
certificate. A pilot holding an R-ATP certificate would also not be
permitted to serve as SIC of an aircraft in flag or supplemental
operations that require three or more pilots because, even prior to the
statutory requirement, SICs in those operations were required to hold
an ATP certificate.
    In addition, the FAA proposed to modify the eligibility
requirements of Sec.  61.153 to establish a minimum age of 21 years for
an R-ATP certificate. The FAA also proposed amending Sec.  61.167 to
preclude a pilot who holds an R-ATP certificate from providing
instruction under that section.
2. General Support for and Opposition to an ATP Certificate With
Reduced Hours
    Sixteen commenters, including APA, CAPA, USAPA, and Kestrel
Aviation, LLC, (Kestrel) believe reducing the flight hour requirement
to be eligible for an ATP certificate should not be allowed. The
Families of Continental Flight 3407 stated that they would like to see
``every pilot required to have the minimum 1,500 actual flight hours
before being eligible for an ATP certificate.'' Four New York
Congressmen and RACCA opposed a reduction in flight time for everyone
except military pilots. Several individual commenters added that
completing flight training through a part 141 pilot school or part 142
training center cannot replace flight experience.
    CAPA commented that ATP certification is a well-proven system and
the 1,500-hour minimum time requirement provides an undeniable basic
level of safety and operational proficiency. APA stated: (1) The 1,500
flight hour requirement helps ensure that a mature, experienced aviator
will be at the controls; (2) there is no substitute for experience; and
(3) the most effective way for pilots to gain essential experience is
to fly aircraft. APA noted that, along with total flight hours, ATP
certificate requirements include cross country, night, and instrument
flight hours that develop pilot skills that cannot be taught in a
classroom or properly developed in a simulator. CAPA stated that real-
world experience is vital.
    NAFI submitted results of a survey it conducted with 427 of its
members regarding the proposals and questions presented in the NPRM. A
majority of the responders indicated that they did not support an ATP
certificate with restricted privileges for pilots with fewer than 1,500
flight hours based on academic training or experience. However, the
results of the survey also showed that a significant number of NAFI
members (327 respondents) believed that segments of the pilot community
other than military pilots and graduates of four-year aviation degree
programs should be eligible for an R-ATP certificate.
    AmeriFlight commented that the proposed rule will isolate many
factions of the industry and funnel students to the cost-prohibitive
four-year college flight training programs. AmeriFlight questioned
whether the FAA believed that the knowledge gained while attending a
four-year postsecondary institution is an adequate replacement for 500
hours of flight time and 175 hours of flight time in cross-country
operations. Delta stated that a reduction in hours, training, or
experience for pilots exercising the PIC privileges of an ATP
certificate is not appropriate based on the statute.
    The majority of commenters, including representatives of air
carriers, educational institutions, and aviation organizations, were
generally supportive of a restricted privileges ATP certificate but
recommended alternatives to the proposal and suggested that it be made
available to a greater number of pilots.
    Fifteen commenters offered opinions and comments on what they
referred to as arbitrary hour requirements, including CAA and IATA. A4A
stated that flight time alone does not ensure pilot proficiency or
professionalism and added that formal education combined with good
hiring practices, training, and mentoring will produce the most highly
qualified pilots. American Flyers/Nova Southeastern University argued
that the FAA should not consider flight hours alone as a satisfactory
indicator or piloting ability, judgment, or experience. It stated that
the qualification for the R-ATP certificate should be based on a
combination of academic training and experience. Several commenters,
including AOPA, RACCA, and the University of Dubuque thought the
minimum age of 21 for an R-ATP was also arbitrary. One individual
commenter added that there was no evidence to suggest age 18 undermined
safety.
    SAFE stated that academic experience should only be used to reduce
flight hours if there is demonstrable evidence to support it. Four
commenters, including WMU, and John A. O'Brien Consulting, LLC, agreed
that a R-ATP certificate should be permitted based on training or
experience.
    GAMA argued that there should be no flight hour minimum; rather,
the FAA should focus on ensuring the quality of flight training. It
added that eligibility for an R-ATP certificate should be determined
through evaluation of the quality of the applicant's academic and
practical flight training. Three commenters noted that the quality of
flight experience was a better indicator of pilot success than only
quantity of flight hours. Six commenters contended that the FAA needs
to allocate resources to develop a better formula for rating the formal
training, education, and experience of candidates for an R-ATP
certificate.
    The FAA continues to support an ATP certificate with restricted
privileges

for pilots who are at least 21 years of age. The majority of commenters
asserted that allowing a reduction in flight hours based on academic
coursework is safe, appropriate, and meets the intent of Congress. For
the commenters who disagree with establishing an ATP certificate with
fewer than 1,500 hours, the FAA also maintains that flight experience
in an aircraft is an important component in developing the knowledge
and skills necessary for a pilot to perform effectively in the air
carrier environment. However, by granting the FAA discretion to reduce
the required flight hours based on specific academic training, the Act
acknowledged that flight time is not necessarily the only component to
developing a safe and qualified pilot. The FAA concurs and has
determined structured academic training integrated with flight training
programs can provide more safety benefit than simply meeting the 1,500
hour flight time requirement alone.
    Accordingly, the FAA will permit a pilot to obtain an ATP
certificate with restricted privileges and serve as an SIC in part 121
operations. The minimum aeronautical experience requirements and age
requirements of an R-ATP certificate will greatly exceed the commercial
pilot certificate requirements previously required to serve as SIC in
part 121 operations. As discussed in greater detail below, the academic
coursework prerequisites for the R-ATP certificate together with the
additional flight hour experience and the new training required for ATP
certification will result in a pilot who is better prepared to enter an
air carrier environment than meeting the 1,500 hour requirement alone.
    The FAA emphasizes that pilots who meet these alternative hour
requirements will be required to pass the same ATP knowledge test and
practical test as pilots who obtain an ATP certificate at 1,500 hours.
In addition, in the final rule, the FAA is retaining the limitations on
the certificates of pilots who obtain an ATP certificate with the
reduced flight hours. These pilots will have the following limitation
placed on their certificates: ``Restricted in accordance with 14 CFR
61.167'' and ``Holder does not meet the pilot-in-command aeronautical
experience requirements of ICAO.'' Pilots who hold ATP certificates
with these limitations will not be permitted to act as PIC in any
operation that requires an ATP certificate or serve as SIC in flag or
supplemental operations that require three or more pilots. The FAA will
remove the restriction from the ATP certificate once the pilot provides
satisfactory evidence of having met the age requirements in Sec.
61.153(a)(1) and the aeronautical experience requirements of Sec.
61.159.
    The flight time requirements for an ATP certificate under Sec.
61.159 are not being altered by this rule. Therefore, pilots acting as
PIC under part 121, Sec.  135.243(a)(1), and Sec.  91.1053(a)(2)(i) are
still required to have at least 1,500 hours of total time as a pilot.
Additionally, the age requirement for obtaining an ATP certificate to
serve as PIC is not being altered in Sec.  61.153. Pilots must continue
to be at least 23 years old to act as PIC in operations that require an
ATP certificate or to serve as SIC in flag or supplemental operations
requiring three or more pilots. The FAA agrees with many of the
commenters that the existing total time requirements for an ATP
certificate are appropriate to act as PIC.
    The following sections address specific comments about alternative
crediting systems, the eligibility of military pilots and graduates of
four-year aviation degree programs as proposed in the NPRM, and
specific recommendations from commenters regarding expanding
eligibility for the R-ATP certificate beyond those proposed in the
NPRM.
3. FOQ ARC Recommendation
    The FOQ ARC recommended crediting academic training as well as
aeronautical experience. The ARC developed a complex system that not
only permitted flight-hour credit for a variety of academic training
including both two- and four-year aviation degrees but also allowed
weighted credit for various flight experience.
    Eleven commenters, including NAFI, Boeing Commercial Airplanes
(Boeing), NATA, RAA, JetBlue, WMU, Purdue, and FSC suggested that the
FAA implement a system of weighted flight hour reductions based on
pilot experience. NAFI noted that the Pilot Source Study and the
recommendations of the FAA's FOQ ARC should be referenced in any
consideration of credit options. Boeing stated that the FAA should
credit all manner of training that would better prepare pilots for air
carrier operations. Boeing noted that this would include all college
aviation programs, approved courses from part 141 and part 142
certificate holders, and all related experience and courses.
    The RAA argued that the FAA should adopt the recommendations of the
FOQ ARC. It noted the FOQ ARC recommended an aeronautical experience
credit system that incorporated many of the individual recommendations
identified by other commenters. The RAA contended that the FOQ ARC
credit system is the model for establishing the proper level of
eligibility and academic credit levels that should be provided for
students of worthy programs. Finally, the RAA added that the NPRM fails
to recognize the myriad of important providers of academic education
and relevant flight experience that should be considered for flight
hour reductions. Additional supporters of the FOQ ARC crediting system
included A4A, CAA, American Eagle Airlines, Inc., ExpressJet, Aerosim,
FedEx, Cape Air, AAL, John O'Brien Consulting, MTSU, Spartan College,
and numerous individual commenters.
    The National Training Aircraft Symposium (NTAS), which consisted of
80 industry members from academia, air carriers, and flight training
providers, recommended a crediting system very similar to the FOQ ARC
crediting system with the only difference in the amount of credit
allowed for flight instruction. Supporters of the NTAS system included
JetBlue, WMU, Purdue University, and FSC.
    The FAA has reconsidered the FOQ ARC crediting system and
determined that implementation and oversight of such a complex system,
or a variation of it, would be too burdensome. Allowing a large number
of crediting options creates a much more complicated process for FAA
examiners and designees in determining and validating how much credit a
pilot can get to be eligible for an R-ATP certificate. In addition, the
weighted flight experience concept gives a multiplier effect to hours
that were deemed more applicable to air carrier operations and
therefore more valuable to a prospective air carrier flightcrew member.
While the FAA finds value in the weighted flight experience concept,
the Act does not permit giving flight hour credit to certain types of
flight experience to reduce the minimum required flight hours for the
ATP certificate.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The FAA notes that Section 217 of the Act directed the FAA
to ensure that applicants for an ATP certificate had received
``flight training, academic training, or operational experience''
that would prepare the pilot to function effectively in an air
carrier environment. Several paragraphs later in Section 217,
Congress gave the Administrator discretion to reduce flight hours
for the ATP certificate based on ``specific academic training
courses.'' The FAA has determined that the failure to list
operational experience in this provision of the Act does not permit
the FAA to reduce flight hours based on operational experience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Considering phases I and III of the Pilot Source Study, the
crediting system proposed by the ARC, and the structured academic
coursework a graduate completes for an aviation

degree, the FAA has determined that a reduction in flight hours is
appropriate, and we have retained credit for academic training in the
final rule. In addition to decisions surrounding the crediting system
proposed by the ARC, the FAA also engaged in extensive qualitative
evaluation of aviation degree programs and courses, which will be
discussed in more detail later in this final rule. This evaluation,
coupled with the documentation that will be provided by the aviation
programs, will help to ensure that crediting hours are only granted for
legitimate aviation program coursework.
4. Military Pilots
    Commenters submitted 95 responses regarding the proposal to allow
military pilots to obtain an R-ATP certificate with 750 hours of flight
time. Eighty-eight commenters agreed a restricted privileges ATP
certificate is appropriate for military pilots. Several other
individual commenters observed that the military operational
environment is different than the air carrier environment, so
reductions based on military experience are not justified. CAPA
specifically stated there is no empirical evidence that a graduate from
a military program has better experience or skill than other airman.
    Four New York congressmen and RACCA opposed a reduction in flight
time for anyone except military pilots. These commenters acknowledged
the highly specialized disciplined screening and training procedures
military pilots undergo.
    Twenty-eight commenters, including Delta, CAA, and RAA, indicated a
750-hour requirement for former military pilots is too high. Most
commenters stated 500 hours is more appropriate. Spartan College stated
``the rigor and quality selection process for military pilots linked
with highly structured training meets or exceeds the requirements of
the NPRM'' and added that 500 hours is appropriate for military pilots
who operate in a multi-crew environment.
    An additional 17 commenters including ERAU, KSU, JetBlue, NAFI,
PABC, GAMA, FSC, CAE, NATA, DSU, and a number of individuals agree
military pilots should be eligible for a restricted privileges ATP
certificate but did not suggest how much experience is appropriate.
Three commenters, including Aerosim, stated 750 hours is too low and
suggested 1,000 hours instead. Aerosim conducted a survey of over 300
of its part 141 flight training institutions that indicated that 71% of
the respondents support a reduction in flight hours for military
pilots, with 55% of respondents stating that 750 hours was adequate.
    The FAA has determined that permitting military pilots to obtain an
R-ATP certificate with fewer than 1,500 hours is appropriate due to the
quality and structure of military training. To be accepted into a pilot
training program in one of the branches of the military, a person must
undergo a rigorous screening process including an assessment of
aviation aptitude. Depending on the branch of the military, an
applicant for pilot training must hold an associate's degree or a
bachelor's degree. Once accepted into a pilot training program, a
person is assigned full-time to aviation training.
    As an example, the United States Air Force Specialized
Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT) includes four to six weeks of
academic and preflight training on aerospace physiology, altitude
chamber tests, aircraft systems, aviation weather, mission planning,
and navigation. After initial academic and preflight training, the Air
Force student pilot undergoes 22 weeks of primary aircraft training
before transitioning to a track of advanced aircraft training that
continues for another 24 to 28 weeks. During flight training, military
pilots continue their academic training through detailed briefings and
debriefings of their flight training. An Air Force student pilot is
committed to a 12-hour duty day while at SUPT, and his or her flight
proficiency is continuously assessed. Additionally, during the flight
training phases, an Air Force student pilot participates in flight
training every day, either in a simulator or an aircraft.
    Similarly, a Navy pilot completes a six-week indoctrination program
which includes classes in aerodynamics, air navigation, aviation
physiology, and engineering. The Navy pilot next completes primary
training in approximately 22 weeks. It includes ground-based academics,
FSTDs, and flight training. The Navy pilot then continues to advanced
flight training.
    Based on the comprehensive and demanding nature of military pilot
training, the FAA is adopting the proposed requirement to allow
military pilots who have graduated from an Armed Forces flight training
program to apply for the ATP practical test after obtaining 750 hours
of flight time. To the extent that some commenters have suggested a
reduction is not appropriate due to operational differences in military
operations, the FAA responds that the completion of military pilot
training and the accumulation of 750 flight hours does not
automatically result in an R-ATP certificate. Rather, a military pilot
will still be required to complete the ATP certification training
program in new Sec.  61.156, pass the ATP knowledge test, and pass the
ATP practical test or air carrier evaluation that results in the
issuance of an ATP certificate. In addition, prior to serving in part
121 operations, military pilots will be required to complete an air
carrier's initial training program and pass a proficiency evaluation.
Accordingly, a military pilot will be required to demonstrate knowledge
of civilian operations.
    The FAA has modified Sec.  61.39 to require military pilots
applying for the ATP practical test to present the documents listed in
Sec.  61.160(a) to substantiate eligibility for an R-ATP certificate.
These documents include an official U.S. Armed Forces record that shows
that the applicant graduated from a U.S. Armed Forces pilot training
school and received a rating qualification as a military pilot.
Graduation from a training program designed to qualify a military pilot
solely for operation of unmanned aircraft systems will not satisfy the
requirement in Sec.  61.160(a). Additionally, the FAA notes that
regulations do not currently permit the time acquired while operating
an unmanned aircraft system to be logged to meet aeronautical
experience requirements for FAA certification.
    Although several commenters have suggested the FAA allow a further
reduction in flight hours for military pilots, the FAA has received no
compelling data to support such a reduction. In addition, the FAA notes
that, based on averages provided by the military, an additional
reduction would have limited impact on those that could take advantage
of this provision. Specifically, the majority of military pilots who
complete their service obligations will have acquired the 1,500 hours
required for an unrestricted ATP certificate. Army pilots who average
approximately 800 hours when they complete their service obligations
and pilots who are honorably discharged from the military prior to
completing their service obligation would be most likely to benefit
from the R-ATP certificate.
5. Graduates With a Bachelor's Degree in an Aviation Major
    One hundred and seventy-five commenters supported an R-ATP
certificate for applicants with a bachelor's degree with an aviation
major. Several academic institutions including the Council for Higher
Education Accreditation (CHEA), the American Association of Community

Colleges, UAA, Fox Valley Technical College of Aeronautics, WMU, Aims
Community College, ERAU, Hesston College, Purdue, KSU, FSC, Westminster
College, UVU, SIU, OSU, MTSU, DSU, Spartan College, Nova Southeastern
University, and Florida Institute of Technology were supportive of the
flight experience reduction based on academics. In addition, several
individual commenters stated that graduates of an aviation degree
program should be eligible to obtain an R-ATP certificate because the
quality of training received at such schools is superior to that
received under part 61.
    CAPA commented that there is no empirical evidence that a graduate
of an aviation degree program has better experience or skill than an
airman who has not. CAPA also stated that, because most pilots cannot
afford the ``extraordinarily high cost of specialized aviation
institutions,'' the reduction in flight hours for these graduates is
unfair because an applicant with financial resources can ``purchase''
their qualifications without having to gain flying experience. Moore
Air, Inc. stated that permitting pilots from aviation bachelor's degree
programs affiliated with part 141 schools discriminates against pilots
with fewer economic resources. John A. O'Brien Aviation Consulting,
LLC, stated the restricted privileges ATP certificate should not be
limited to college graduates from ``select universities.'' AAL
commented that the NPRM encourages pilots to attend a four-year
aviation college or university but fails to recognize that such paths
are available only to those willing and able to afford such educational
paths. AAL acknowledges that higher education and quality training
should be encouraged but quality training is also available in places
outside accredited four-year aviation colleges.
    In support of a reduction based on academic credit, Parks College
(Parks) stated that its aviation graduates accomplish approximately 220
``hours of ground and classroom instruction leading to a [commercial
pilot certificate] with an instrument rating.'' Parks noted that, in
addition to this classroom training for pilot certification, its
students complete an additional 480 hours (32 credit hours) of academic
coursework on topics related to aviation and air carrier operations.
UND also provided information demonstrating that graduates of its
professional flight curriculum must complete 464 hours of instruction
in required aviation coursework that includes courses on human factors,
flight physiology, advanced aerodynamics, and aviation weather. These
students must also complete ground and flight training toward a
commercial pilot certificate and instrument rating.
    Based on the fact that the academic coursework completed as part of
an aviation major generally exceeds the time a pilot might spend in
ground school outside of that environment, the FAA continues to support
a reduction of flight hours for graduates with an aviation major from a
four-year institution of higher education who complete ground and
flight training as part of approved training courses at a part 141
pilot school that is associated with the institution of higher
education. Over the course of several years, these graduates complete
significant aviation coursework well above the hours of ground training
required for commercial pilot certification. In addition, a student's
knowledge and flight proficiency are continuously evaluated throughout
the degree program.
    Notwithstanding the FAA's continued support for a reduction in
required flight hours for these applicants, the FAA has refined,
clarified, and expanded some elements of the R-ATP certificate as it
applies to graduates of degree programs with aviation majors in the
final rule. These modifications are discussed in the following
sections.
a. Flight Hour Requirement
    Notwithstanding general support for a reduction in hours for these
pilots, many commenters recommended reducing the hours below the 1,000
hours proposed in the NPRM.
    One hundred sixty-five commenters stated that 1,000 hours is too
high, including OSU, Aviation Professional Development, LLC (APD), DSU,
and the Pilot Career Initiative. AAL and Westminster College stated
1,000 hours is much too high to provide an incentive for pilots to
pursue a formal education.
    Most commenters responded that a total flight time of 500 to 750
hours is more appropriate for graduates of a four-year aviation degree
program. Many commenters, including Delta, ERAU, and Rocky Mountain
College cited the Pilot Source Study as evidence that the FAA should
allow pilots with fewer than 1,000 hours to be employed by air
carriers. The American Aviation Institute (AAI) along with several
other commenters suggested the rule be simplified by establishing the
750-hour threshold for an R-ATP certificate to civilian candidates who
have graduated from accredited programs including two- and four-year
universities, programs designed for university graduates, and other
structured academies run by training organizations and by airlines. AAI
also recommended the FAA establish requirements for academies to
qualify them. Other commenters suggested that the FAA offer an R-ATP
certificate to graduates of a four-year collegiate flight program with
fewer total flight hours, generally in the range between 500 and 1,000
flight hours.
    Ten commenters, including KSU, SJSU, WMU, UVU, Aerosim, ALPA,
American Flyers, and Nova Southeastern University believe the proposed
1,000 hours of flight experience is adequate. Approximately 47 percent
of NAFI's members indicated that 1,000 hours is too low but did not
specify how many of those responding generally oppose an R-ATP
certificate.
    The FAA has considered the 2010 and 2012 Pilot Source Studies, the
FOQ ARC report, and the structured academic coursework in aviation a
graduate receives \19\ and has determined that, based on the best
currently available information, it is appropriate to retain the
minimum 1,000-hour aeronautical experience requirement for graduates of
four-year degree program with an aviation major who obtain their
commercial pilot certificate and instrument rating from an associated
part 141 pilot school. Commenters have not provided compelling evidence
to support a further reduction in hours for graduates of these
programs. Many commenters referenced the 2010 Pilot Source Study (which
indicated that the most successful pilots in initial training, without
any consideration of the manner in which they received their aviation
training, were those pilots hired with 500-1,000 hours) to justify why
they felt the FAA should reduce the hour requirement further.\20\ The
FAA notes that the third phase of the Pilot Source Study, which was
submitted to the docket, indicated that pilots with 1,001-1,500 total
flight hours had more completions in training than any other group,
including the group with 500-1,000 total flight hours.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ There is further discussion of the FAA's review of academic
curriculum later in this document. This review provided additional
support to the agency's decision to retain the credit for graduates
of aviation degree programs.
    \21\ A summary of the findings of the 2012 Pilot Source Study
was submitted to the rulemaking docket. The FAA considered the
results along with additional factors during development of the
final rule. A recent journal article discussing the results of the
2012 Pilot Source Study concluded that ``flight hours are not a good
predictor of performance.'' The journal article can be found in the
Journal of Aviation Technology and Engineering, Vol.II, Issue 2
(2013) at: http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/jate/vol2/iss2/2/.

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

b. Institutional Accreditation and ``Aviation Degree Programs''
    The FAA proposed in the NPRM to permit a reduced flight hour
requirement for applicants who hold a bachelor's degree with an
aviation major obtained from a postsecondary educational institution
that satisfies the definition of ``accredited'' as established by
Department of Education in 34 CFR 600.2. The Department of Education
maintains a database of accredited postsecondary institutions and
programs available at the following Web site: http://ope.ed.gov/accreditation/.
    UAA fully supported the proposed requirement that any degree-
granting institution qualifying its graduates for reduced flight hours
must be accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency as
defined by the Department of Education in 34 CFR 600.2. UAA contended
that this type of accreditation insures the validity of the institution
granting the degree and provides the most inclusive form of
accreditation possible by which to prepare pilots for the proposed R-
ATP certificate. UAA added some of their member institutions hold
program-specific accreditation in addition to institutional
accreditation, but the majority do not have program accreditation at
this time. UAA looked at current, national collegiate flight training
and indicated the number of eligible institutions will decrease from
over 164 to 29 if program specific accreditation becomes a requirement.
UAA noted that two institutions that currently hold program
accreditation are phasing out their pilot training programs.
    KSU stated that the relationship between the academic institution
and the flight training provider signifies a strong commitment to
quality pilot education and fosters an environment of professional
pilot training. KSU added that Aviation Accreditation Board
International (AABI) accreditation and part 141 approval by the FAA
provide the needed quality assurances for the quality and integrity of
flight training. Purdue added that the same credit should be given to
graduates of AABI-accredited flight programs regardless of the part
under which the school operates. APD agreed with the proposal to
provide an R-ATP certificate but indicated that those R-ATP
certificates should be available only for those students attending an
AABI-accredited flight school.
    The FAA received several comments requesting the FAA further define
``aviation degree program.'' The NTSB supported an ATP certificate with
restricted privileges provided standards are established for student
performance and the type of degree programs are more clearly defined.
An individual commenter also suggested ``aviation-related degree'' is
too broad. The commenter suggested the FAA specify the number of hours
as well as the subject areas that should be taught. Barbary Coast
Consulting expressed concern that the determination of what degree
credits would qualify for a reduction in hours would fall to the
academic institution and recommended that the FAA should make this
determination based on how these classes will actually enhance aviation
safety.
    The Families of Continental Flight 3407 stated that, while there is
value to aeronautical knowledge and training provided by four-year
accredited institutions that offer aviation degrees, such graduates
should not ``blindly be accorded flight hour credit without carefully
evaluating each course to determine if it meets the law's specific
criteria[.]'' The Families of Continental Flight 3407 specifically
noted that the law required that academic training courses ``enhance
safety more than requiring the pilot to fully comply with the flight
hours requirement.'' P.L. 111-216, sec. 217(d). The Families of
Continental Flight 3407 further stated that the FAA should develop a
procedure to carefully evaluate the coursework in each graduate's
academic program and only give credit to courses that enhance aviation
safety and not courses that focus on ``tangential areas of aviation.''
They indicated that credit should be based on a course-by-course basis
and not a blanket 500-hour reduction.
    NATA noted that the Act gave the FAA authority to allow for reduced
hours based on a safety assessment. It argued that the FAA failed to
demonstrate in the NPRM that it had performed a comprehensive analysis.
AAI indicated that the FAA should set specific program standards that
can be met at the undergraduate or graduate levels at accredited
schools and universities.
    Spartan College commented that the education program must be well
integrated with the university to make sure that classroom and flight
lab time match the learning objectives. Spartan College recommended
that all academic and ground school courses be taught by faculty and
instructional staff employed by the institution. Spartan College
indicated, however, that flight training could be taught either by an
institution's instructional staff or by one or more qualified
contractors through written contract.
    The FAA is retaining the requirement for institutional
accreditation in this final rule because accreditation ensures that
education provided by institutions of higher education meet acceptable
levels of quality. Accrediting agencies, as defined by the Department
of Education in 34 CFR 600.2, develop evaluation criteria and conduct
peer evaluations to assess whether those criteria are met. According to
CHEA, accredited status is a signal to students and the public that an
institution meets at least threshold standards for its faculty,
curriculum, student services, and libraries.
    The FAA acknowledges the value of programmatic accreditation, but
it is not the sole means of assuring the quality of an aviation degree
program for the purpose of qualifying students for an R-ATP
certificate. Currently, AABI is the only organization that provides
accreditation to aviation degree programs. As noted by UAA, if program-
specific accreditation becomes a requirement for the R-ATP certificate,
the number of eligible institutions will be reduced to 29.
    The FAA agrees, however, with commenters who believe that the
requirements of ``aviation degree programs'' must be better defined.
The FAA has reviewed aviation degree curriculum requirements from over
100 colleges and universities and found that graduates of four-year
universities receive bachelor's degrees with as few as 27 credit hours
and as many as 85 credit hours in aviation and aviation-related
courses. In addition, required courses and electives within aviation
degree programs vary significantly. Many aviation degree programs are
not focused primarily on preparing a student for a career as a
professional pilot but rather for careers in areas such as air traffic
control, aerospace engineering, aircraft maintenance, or business
aviation. If the requirements proposed in the NPRM were not refined,
graduates of those degree programs could be eligible for an R-ATP
certificate without having completed relevant coursework designed to
improve their knowledge and skills as a pilot.
    For this reason, the FAA has decided that broad approval of
aviation degree programs based on accreditation alone is not
sufficient. Rather, the most critical element for determining whether a
graduate should be eligible for an R-ATP certificate is the body of
coursework completed prior to graduating with a degree in an aviation
major. Establishing more specific program criteria for eligibility for
an R-ATP certificate will better ensure that

academic training courses enhance safety such that a reduction in
flight hours is consistent with the Act.
    The FAA has modified Sec.  61.160 from that proposed in the NPRM to
clarify the academic requirements a student must complete to be
eligible for an R-ATP certificate. In the final rule, the FAA has
established that a student must:
     Earn a bachelor's degree in an aviation major;
     Complete 60 semester credit hours in aviation and
aviation-related coursework designed to improve and enhance the
knowledge and skills of a person seeking a career as a professional
pilot;
     Complete ground training for a commercial pilot
certificate and an instrument rating under approved part 141 curricula
at the institution of higher education;
     Complete flight training for commercial pilot certificate
and an instrument rating under approved part 141 curricula at the
institution of higher education or at a part 141 pilot school
associated with the institution of higher education; and
     Obtain a commercial pilot certificate with airplane rating
and an instrument rating upon completion of ground and flight training.
    The FAA has established 60 semester credit hours in aviation and
aviation-related coursework designed to improve and enhance the
knowledge and skills of a person seeking a career as a professional
pilot as the minimum requirement. In determining whether a course is
designed to improve and enhance the knowledge and skills of a person
seeking a career as a professional pilot, the institution should
consider the objective and purpose of the course. For instance, an
introductory course on air traffic control could be designed to provide
a foundation for both pilots and for students intending to pursue a
career as an air traffic controller. On the other hand, an upper-level
or advanced air traffic control course is primarily intended to prepare
a person to work as an air traffic controller with little additional
benefit to a person seeking a career as a pilot. Although knowledge of
tower operations is instructive, an upper-level air traffic control
course is not generally designed with the goal of improving and
enhancing the knowledge and skills of a person seeking a career as a
professional pilot.
    These credit hours may include coursework outside the aviation
department so long as the course focuses on an aviation-related topic.
For example, credit hours obtained in a meteorology course outside the
aviation department could count toward the required 60 credit hours
because it introduces the student to basic weather theory that will
affect flight decisions. As further explained in AC 61-139, Institution
of Higher Education's Application for Authority to Certify its
Graduates for an Airline Transport Pilot Certificate with Reduced
Aeronautical Experience, the FAA believes that courses in subject areas
like aircraft performance and aerodynamics, aircraft systems, aviation
human factors, air traffic control and airspace, aviation law and
regulations, aviation weather, and aviation safety represent courses
that are designed to enhance and improve the knowledge and skills of a
person seeking a career as a professional pilot. The FAA expects that,
in addition to the ground and flight training required for FAA
certification, aviation students will have completed coursework in all
of these areas as part of their aviation degree.
    Finally, an R-ATP certificate applicant must have a commercial
pilot certificate with an airplane category and instrument rating
earned from a part 141 pilot school that is part of the academic
institution or associated with the academic institution through a
formal training agreement. Under Sec.  61.160, a graduate must have
completed all ground training for the commercial pilot certificate and
instrument rating at the institution of higher education. Accordingly,
the academic institution must, at a minimum, hold a part 141 pilot
school certificate for ground training. This requirement will ensure
that the ground training for certification is integrated into the
institution's broader academic curriculum. The flight training for the
commercial pilot certificate and instrument rating may be completed
either at the institution, if it holds a part 141 pilot school
certificate for flight training, or at a part 141 pilot school that is
associated with the undergraduate institution through a formal training
agreement. The FAA notes it has revised Sec.  141.26 to require a pilot
school that provides flight training for an institution of higher
education that holds a letter of authorization under Sec.  61.169 must
have a formal training agreement with that institution of higher
education.
    Under the standards established in the final rule, the FAA
estimates that students who are eligible for an R-ATP certificate will
complete over 600 instructional hours \22\ in aviation and aviation-
related coursework designed to prepare them for a career as a
professional pilot. Concurrently with their broader aviation
coursework, students will complete the required ground and flight
training and pass the practical tests for a commercial pilot
certificate and instrument rating. These students are continuously
evaluated with academic testing and flight evaluations over the course
of several years. Based on these factors, a graduate of a bachelor's
degree program who completes the requirements set forth in Sec.  61.160
is eligible for an R-ATP and may apply for the ATP practical test with
1,000 hours total time as a pilot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The FAA estimated that, as part of a degree program,
students will complete an average of 12-15 credit hours of ground
and flight training toward FAA certificates and ratings. Students
will complete an additional 45-48 credit hours of broader aviation
and aviation-related coursework during 15-week semesters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In setting the criterion for 60 semester credit hours in aviation
and aviation-related coursework, the FAA decided to allow partial
recognition for applicants with bachelor's degrees with aviation majors
who fall short of the 60 credit hour requirement. Applicants who have
completed at least 30 semester credit hours in aviation and aviation-
related coursework designed to improve and enhance the knowledge and
skills of a person seeking a career as a professional pilot may apply
for an R-ATP certificate with 1,250 hours total time as a pilot. The
applicant's coursework must include all of the ground and flight
training for a commercial pilot certificate and instrument rating.
c. Cross Country Time for the R-ATP Certificate
    To apply for an ATP certificate under Sec.  61.159, a pilot must
accumulate 1,500 hours total time as a pilot that must include 500
hours of cross-country flight time. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to
require military pilots who apply for an R-ATP certificate with 750
hours total time as a pilot to have 250 hours of cross-country flight
time. The NPRM proposed requiring graduates with aviation majors who
apply for an R-ATP certificate with 1,000 hours total time as a pilot
to have 375 hours of cross-country flight time. The reduction in the
required cross-country flight time was proportional to the reduction in
total flight hours.
    UND's John D. Odegard School of Aerospace Sciences submitted a
research study that was conducted to assess the impact of the proposed
rule on the supply of pilots who primarily obtain their flight
experience from flight instructing. UND's study concentrated on the
nature of flight time acquired as a flight instructor as it relates to
the 500 hours of cross-country flight time required to apply for the
ATP certificate.

The participants in the study included line flight instructors from 17
collegiate aviation programs. Based on its research, UND concluded that
the average flight instructor would have to log 2,100 total flight
hours before accumulating 500 hours of cross-country flight time. UND
recommended that the FAA amend the rule to require a minimum of 200
hours of cross-country flight experience to obtain an R-ATP certificate
rather than the 375 hours proposed in the NPRM for graduates of four-
year aviation programs.
    The FAA has reviewed the information provided by UND and determined
that it is appropriate to reduce the cross-country flight time required
for all applicants for an R-ATP certificate to 200 hours. In reaching
this decision, the FAA considered the past and current requirements of
both the commercial pilot and ATP certificates. Although 200 hours is
below the requirements for an ATP certificate under Sec.  61.159, the
FAA believes pilots will accumulate a significant and relevant amount
of cross-country experience as SICs in part 121 operations before being
eligible to obtain an unrestricted ATP certificate and upgrade to PIC.
The 200 hours of cross-country experience represents a significant
increase over the 50 hours of cross-country flight time required for
the commercial pilot certificate--the prior requirement to serve as SIC
in part 121 operations. Pilots who hold an R-ATP certificate will be
required to meet the 500 hours of cross-country flight time required in
Sec.  61.159 prior to having the limitation removed from their
certificate. The FAA notes that the 200 hours of cross-country flight
time is consistent with the ICAO standard for an unrestricted ATP
certificate.
d. The Role of the Institution of Higher Education in Certifying Its
Students
    Under new Sec.  61.169, an institution of higher education may
apply for authority to certify that its graduates have met the academic
eligibility requirements for an R-ATP certificate. The institution may
not certify a student based solely on the degree received or the
aviation major that has been completed. Rather, it will be required to
evaluate each student's coursework before certifying that a graduate
has met all of the academic eligibility requirements.
    To obtain authority to certify students for eligibility for the R-
ATP certificate under new Sec.  61.160, an institution of higher
education must submit an application and supporting documentation, as
appropriate, to the FAA that includes:
     List of aviation majors offered by the institution;
     Type of degree offered;
     Institutional accreditation information;
     Part 141 pilot school information;
     List of substantial changes to degree programs in past
five years;
     Course descriptions of aviation and aviation-related
courses that may be used to satisfy the credit hours required by Sec.
61.160; and
     Training agreements for flight training provided by a part
141 pilot school, if applicable.
    The institution must identify on the form those academic courses
that satisfy the requirements of Sec.  61.160. Specifically, the
institution must demonstrate that a course is designed to improve and
enhance the skills and knowledge of a person seeking a career as a
professional pilot. These courses will include the ground and flight
training courses required for FAA certification as well as other
coursework within the aviation department, such as Aviation Law, Human
Factors, or Advanced Aircraft Systems. Courses outside the aviation
department may also satisfy the requirements of Sec.  61.160. For
example, a physics course may qualify as an aviation-related course
provided the course description clearly indicates aircraft performance
and aerodynamics are the primary focus of the course. The institution
must demonstrate that it offers sufficient aviation and aviation-
related courses that a graduate could rely upon to meet at least 30
semester credit hours.
    The application and FAA review process for institutions seeking a
letter of authorization to certify students is further explained in AC
61-139. The AC provides greater detail on the aviation and aviation-
related coursework used to satisfy the semester credit hour
requirement. In addition, the AC provides information related to the
part 141 pilot school requirements, including training agreements, and
the institution's responsibility to notify the FAA of any changes that
will affect its letter of authorization. Once the FAA has determined
that an institution of higher education has met all the requirements,
it will issue a letter of authorization granting the school authority
to add a certifying statement to a student's transcript or other
document deemed acceptable by the Administrator. The certifying
statement must denote whether the graduate is eligible to apply for an
R-ATP certificate based on the applicable criteria in Sec.  61.160 at
1,000 hours (graduates who have completed at least 60 credit hours), or
1,250 hours (graduates who have completed at least 30 credit hours). A
graduate will then be required to present the certifying document,
along with all other documentation required in Sec.  61.39, when
applying for the practical test for an R-ATP certificate.
6. Recommendations for Expanding Eligibility for the R-ATP Certificate
    A significant number of commenters, including air carriers,
educational institutions, training providers, instructors, and aviation
organizations suggested that a greater number of pilots should be
eligible for an ATP certificate with reduced flight hours.
Specifically, commenters suggested that the FAA make the R-ATP
certificate available to the following candidates:
     Graduates of two-year aviation degree programs with
commercial pilot certificates and instrument ratings from an affiliated
part 141 pilot school;
     Students who come to eligible programs already holding
commercial pilot certificates and instrument ratings;
     Students from non-eligible programs who transfer into and
graduate from eligible programs;
     Pilots who are age 21 and have 1,500 hours of flight time;
     Graduates with bachelor's degrees with aviation majors and
obtain commercial pilot certificates and instrument ratings from a non-
affiliated part 141 pilot school;
     Graduates with bachelor's degrees with aviation majors and
obtain commercial pilot certificates and instrument ratings from an
affiliated part 61 flight training program;
     Graduates with associate's degrees with aviation majors
and obtain commercial pilot certificates and instrument ratings from a
non-affiliated part 141 pilot school;
     Graduates with associate's degrees with aviation majors
who obtain commercial pilot certificates and instrument ratings from an
affiliated part 61 flight training program;
     Pilots who have completed training programs at ``Aviation
Academies'' (part 141 pilot school or part 142 training center);
     Pilots who have completed ``other'' aviation courses (e.g.
AJT, Upset Prevention and Recovery Training (UPRT));
     Certified Flight Instructors (CFI); and
     Graduates of colleges and universities who do not have
aviation degrees
    A discussion of the options suggested by commenters follows.

a. Graduates With an Associate's Degree in an Aviation Major
    In the NPRM, the FAA did not propose any reduction in total flight
time for graduates of two-year aviation degree programs. Thirty six
commenters, including Fox Valley Technical College Aeronautics Advisory
Committee (FVTC), Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), Aims
Community College, NAFI, Jet Transitions, American Association of
Community Colleges, Hesston College, Spartan College, UAA, CAE, and
ExpressJet, argued that graduates of pilot schools not associated with
a four-year aviation degree program should also be eligible for reduced
flight time to be eligible for an R-ATP certificate. Most of the thirty
six commenters stated that two-year college flight training programs
should be eligible for an R-ATP certificate.
    Fox Valley Technical College and the American Association of
Community Colleges contended that the proposed rule is arbitrary and
discriminatory and that graduates of two-year colleges and universities
should be allowed to obtain an R-ATP certificate.
    Aims Community College added that its students receive the same
focused aviation training discussed in the NPRM and should be eligible
for the same credit that graduates of four-year degree programs
receive. According to Aims, these students complete the same flight
hour and academic instruction requirements as students at four-year
institutions, even though they do not complete as many courses
unrelated to aviation. Aims indicated that students who earn an
Associate of Applied Science degree complete 72 credit hours as part of
its fixed-wing professional pilot program. They also stated the two-
year college and university system nationwide has been providing well-
trained pilots for the airlines and other aviation employers for
decades. They suggested that, with the high cost of flight training and
college in general, now is not the time to take away an efficient,
effective, reasonably priced, educational opportunity from those who
cannot afford the cost and time required for a four-year degree
program.
    CAE contended that quality instruction and flight experience can be
delivered in two-year programs affiliated with part 141 pilot schools
or part 142 training centers. Spartan College supported academic credit
based on a variety of educational tracks including four-year and two-
year collegiate aviation degrees. UAA, ExpressJet, and several other
commenters argued that the FAA failed to include two-year programs,
which should be afforded academic credit as provided in the FOQ ARC
report.
    The UAA added that two-year college and university aviation degree
programs are a key part of the overall collegiate aviation-related
pilot supply. To validate the assertion, the UAA conducted a telephone
survey in April 2012, which reached a total of 29 community college
aviation degree programs out of 40 identified as flight training
providers. Based on the data obtained in the survey, the UAA estimates
more than 2,000 aviation students are currently enrolled in two-year
degree programs. For the 29 respondents, it was found that: ``(1) 1,474
total students were enrolled in aviation flight-related degrees at
these institutions, or, on average, 51 students per institution; (2)
the student enrollment ranged from a low of 7 students to a high of 292
students; and (3) of the 29 institutions reporting, 18 conducted flight
training solely under part 141, 6 operated under part 61, and 5 used a
combination of parts 61 and 141.''
    UAA recommended changing the proposed Sec.  61.160 to eliminate the
differentiation between two- and four-year schools and recommended a
750-hour minimum for the R-ATP certificate. The EAA contended that the
FAA should form a working group to explore what modifications should be
made to these two-year school accreditation standards in order for
their programs and students to qualify for the revised ATP aeronautical
experience requirements in Sec.  61.160.
    The AAI recommended that the FAA adopt a program-based standard and
not define acceptability solely by the length of the program. AAI
commented that a student at a four-year institution pursues coursework
in non-aviation fields, which is far less relevant than the aviation
coursework actually taken.
    Based on the FAA's extensive review of two-year and four-year
aviation degree programs, the FAA has determined that it is appropriate
to permit graduates who obtain an associate's degree with an aviation
major to apply for an R-ATP certificate with fewer than 1,500 total
hours. The two-year colleges, universities, and their graduates who
responded to the NPRM have provided sufficient information to support a
reduction in the flight hour requirement for an R-ATP certificate.
    The FAA has found that these graduates receive degrees with a range
of 24 to 56 credit hours in aviation and aviation-related coursework.
On average, however, graduates of associate degree programs complete
fewer credit hours in aviation coursework than graduates of bachelor's
degree programs. For that reason, the FAA disagrees with giving the
same credit to two-year programs. Accordingly, the FAA has modified
Sec.  61.160 to permit graduates of approved two-year degree programs
with aviation majors to apply for an R-ATP certificate with 1,250 total
hours of flight time.
    As set forth in Sec.  61.160(c), graduates of two-year programs
must complete a minimum of 30 semester credit hours in aviation and
aviation-related coursework designed to improve and enhance the
knowledge and skills of a person seeking a career as a professional
pilot. The 30 credit hours may include coursework outside of the
aviation department so long as the course focuses on an aviation
related topic. The FAA assumes on average courses are offered at three
semester credit hours per course. The 30 credit hours therefore will
include the ground and flight training courses for a commercial pilot
certificate and instrument rating and other aviation and aviation-
related courses.
    As with bachelor's degree programs, the graduate will need to
acquire a commercial pilot certificate with an airplane category and
instrument rating from a part 141 pilot school that is part of the
undergraduate institution. The institution of higher education must
hold a part 141 pilot school certificate and provide all ground
training for the commercial pilot certificate and instrument rating.
This requirement will ensure that the ground training is integrated
into the broader academic curriculum. The flight training may be
completed either at the institution, if it holds a part 141 pilot
school certificate for flight training, or at a part 141 pilot school
that is associated with the undergraduate institution through a
training agreement.
b. Transfer Students
    SIU believes students who move from a two-year aviation degree
program to an affiliated four-year aviation program and complete their
bachelor's degree and the required flight training under part 141
should be eligible for a restricted privileges ATP certificate. KSU
similarly states students who transfer to a four-year collegiate flight
training degree program with an affiliated part 141 pilot school should
have the same eligibility as a student who solely attends a four-year
collegiate flight training degree program with an affiliated part 141
pilot school. KSU noted, however, that the school receiving a transfer
student must evaluate the student's performance and

ensure that the school's own performance standard is met before
graduation can occur.
    The FAA acknowledges students follow a number of different paths
for completing post-secondary education at a college or university.
Some students start at community colleges and transfer to four-year
degree programs while other students transfer between different four-
year institutions of higher education. The FAA does not want to deter
individuals from seeking alternative paths to achieving an aviation
degree and therefore has determined that students who transfer into a
two-year or four-year degree program with an aviation major could be
eligible for an R-ATP certificate. These graduates would be eligible
for an R-ATP certificate provided they complete the applicable
requirements of Sec.  61.160, including the semester credit hours and
ground and flight training.
    The FAA acknowledges that many of the larger four-year degree
programs with aviation majors have satellite programs that are two-year
programs. The satellite schools follow the same ground and flight
training curriculum as the parent school which makes for a smooth
transition from the two-year program to the four-year program. The FAA
believes those graduates should also be eligible for an R-ATP
certificate provided the requirements of Sec.  61.160 are met and
documented through official college transcripts and records. Further
guidance and clarification on transfer credit is provided in AC 61-139.
c. Pilots With 1,500 Hours Who Are Not Yet 23 Years Old
    Three commenters stated pilots should be able to obtain an R-ATP
certificate at the age of 21 or less as long as they meet the full
aeronautical experience requirements for the ATP certificate, including
the 1,500 hours of total flight time. The commenters added that the
existing age 23 requirement for the ATP certificate is arbitrary,
discriminatory, and not based on science. AOPA commented that the FAA
should allow any applicant to obtain an ATP certificate at the age of
21 and receive restricted privileges. NATA supports no age requirement
if the ATP minimums are met, stating those pilots should be eligible
for a restricted privileges ATP certificate.
    Many pilots who have not yet reached the age of 23 have met or
exceeded the 1,500 hours of total time as a pilot required for an ATP
certificate. The FAA has remained consistent through denials of
requests for exemption and previous rulemaking efforts to maintain the
eligibility requirement of 23 years of age for an ATP certificate. The
FAA has stated that the minimum age requirement of 23 years ensures ``a
high maturity level for those pilots who are permitted to operate as
PIC in operations requiring an ATP certificate.'' Exemption No. 7472.
Commenters have failed to provide any compelling evidence to support a
change to the long-standing requirement that a pilot exercising the PIC
privileges of an ATP certificate be at least 23 years of age.
Therefore, the FAA has not changed the age requirements for pilots
serving as PIC in part 121 air carrier operations, SIC in part 121 flag
or supplemental operations requiring three or more pilots, or
operations conducted under Sec. Sec.  91.1053(a)(2)(i) and
135.243(a)(1).
    Based on the comments, however, the FAA has determined that a pilot
who has reached the age of 21, has logged 1,500 hours total time as a
pilot, and satisfies the remaining aeronautical experience requirements
for an R-ATP certificate should be permitted to apply for an R-ATP
certificate and serve as an SIC in part 121 operations. These pilots
will exceed the age requirement of 18 years old that is currently
required to obtain a commercial pilot certificate which, prior to the
final rule, allowed a pilot to serve as SIC in part 121. Additionally,
these pilots will have achieved the total flight time for an ATP
certificate obtained under Sec.  61.159. The FAA has determined that
permitting such pilots to serve as SICs is an increase in the level of
safety under current regulations and is consistent with the public
law's focus on a higher level of flight experience for pilots serving
in part 121 air carrier operations.
    As with other applicants for an R-ATP certificate, these pilots
will be required to complete 200 hours of cross-country flight time.
The remaining 300 hours of cross-country flight time can be completed
as an SIC in part 121 operations. The minimum age of 21 for an R-ATP
certificate will allow those pilots currently serving as SICs in part
121 operations to continue serving in their current role provided they
meet the required aeronautical knowledge and experience requirements
and successfully accomplish an evaluation that results in ATP
certification and an aircraft type rating.
d. Other Degree Programs
    Twenty-seven commenters stated that graduates from four-year
universities affiliated with part 61 schools should also be eligible
for an R-ATP certificate. One commenter suggested that the FAA
establish a fair method whereby flight proficiency could be measured
against part 141 standards to allow part 61 students a reduction in
flight hours. Another individual commenter pointed out that part 141
schools are given an unfair advantage over part 61 schools. UVU stated
that graduates from four-year aviation programs with integrated flight
training should qualify for an R-ATP certificate regardless of whether
their training was conducted under part 61 or part 141.
    Numerous commenters stated that AABI accredited institutions with
part 61 schools should be eligible for a restricted privileges ATP
certificate at 1,000 flight hours. Purdue believes any AABI-accredited
aviation program should be eligible for credit regardless of whether
the associated flight training is conducted under 14 CFR parts 61, 141,
or 142.
    Several commenters, including DSU and CAE, believed pilots with an
aviation-related degree and part 141 flight training from a separate
organization should be eligible for a restricted privileges ATP
certificate. SIU, AAL, and Prairie Air Service, Inc. argued that the
FAA should extend eligibility for the R-ATP certificate to any four-
year college graduate, regardless of academic major or where flight
training was obtained. Westminster College supported academic credit as
a substitute for flight experience adding that credit should be
extended to graduates of a part 141 pilot school with any four-year
college degree or associate's degrees in aviation.
    Many commenters disagreed with allowing credit for an ATP
certificate for training received from non-affiliated part 141 pilot
school. IATA stated that, if this proposition were to become a reality,
it would require an unreasonable amount of FAA oversight in determining
the adequacy of each applicant's training. ALPA's support of flight
hour reduction for the restricted ATP certificate for college or
university educated pilots is based on a comprehensive flight training
curriculum integrated with the student's education. Several of the
individual commenters stated that graduates of an aviation degree
program should be eligible to obtain an R-ATP certificate because the
quality of training received at such schools is superior to that
received under part 61.
    The FAA has considered all of the various methods for obtaining
academic and flight experience proposed by commenters but decided that
degree programs with non-aviation majors, flight training conducted
under part 61, and non-integrated flight training

should not be eligible for an ATP certificate with fewer than 1,500
hours. The FAA has permitted a reduction for graduates who receive
bachelor's degrees and associate's degrees with aviation majors and
receive part 141 ground and flight training for a commercial pilot
certificate and an instrument rating as part of a broader aviation
curriculum.
    The FAA does not agree with those commenters who believe that
graduates with degrees unrelated to aviation should be eligible for an
R-ATP certificate. These graduates have not completed coursework that
prepares them for a career as a professional pilot and such an
allowance would not be consistent with the Act. As discussed above, the
FAA has emphasized the importance of an aviation curriculum in
permitting a reduction in flight hours. It is the significance of
aviation coursework above and beyond what is required for pilot
certification that is the primary basis for permitting a reduction in
flight hours. To underscore this fact, the FAA has established a
minimum number of credit hours in aviation and aviation-related
coursework designed to improve and enhance the knowledge and skills of
a person seeking a career as a professional pilot that these students
must complete to be eligible for an R-ATP certificate. Although
completing a bachelor's degree may develop certain qualities in an
individual that may assist them in a career as a professional pilot,
those qualities are not directly relevant to aviation and should not be
the basis for a reduction in flight hours.
    For those commenters who believe that the reduction should apply to
graduates irrespective of whether they complete ground and flight
training through a part 141 pilot school or under part 61, or whether
or not the flight training is integrated with the academic coursework,
the FAA disagrees. By requiring the institution of higher education to
hold a part 141 certificate to teach at least the ground training, the
FAA ensures that the training for a commercial certificate and
instrument rating is incorporated into the broader academic aviation
curriculum. In addition, the FAA has oversight of the training
conducted through part 141 program approval. Those pilot schools must
renew their certificates every 24 months and demonstrate the quality of
the training through an established training standard.
e. Other Approved Training and Specialized Courses
    Forty-one commenters, including the Pilot Career Initiative (PCI),
AOPA, Paradigm Shift Solutions, Inc., Prairie Air Service, Inc., SIU,
MTSU, and Spartan College, encouraged the FAA to permit pilots with
other training experiences to qualify for an R-ATP certificate.
    AOPA and AAI contend that the FAA defined ``academic credit'' too
narrowly. NAFI advised consideration of what would constitute
``academic study'' and recommended that it not be limited only to
university or college training programs. NAFI stated that it was
possible that other institutions or training providers could develop
highly effective ``academic study'' training programs. NAFI added that
a standardized criterion that could be applied across various programs
would be necessary to allow such a condition to be successful and
measurable.
    PCI contended that the structured flight academies should qualify
for a reduction in hours because they have strong academic and flight
training programs conducted through an approved FAA curriculum. John A.
O'Brien Aviation Consulting, LLC indicated that aviation academies
should be eligible since they provide interaction with experienced
airline professionals and flight instruction in accordance with FAA
regulations to individuals seeking employment as a pilot at an airline.
The training is specialized and regimented for an individual with very
little aviation background to acquire the skills and knowledge to
graduate from a program, in a short timeframe, with all of the pilot
certificates necessary to fly at an air carrier. AOPA is also
supportive of credit for training completed at aviation ``academies.''
    AOPA and two other commenters stated that the FAA should allow
credit for individual academic courses and not simply apply a blanket
reduction at graduation. Paradigm Shift Solutions and four additional
commenters noted the FAA had not considered Advanced Jet Training for
credit--a unanimous recommendation from the FOQ ARC. Another commenter
noted the FAA had not considered pilots enrolled in FAA-Industry
Training Standards programs or those pilots who complete air carrier
training through an Advanced Qualification Program. The Upset
Prevention and Recovery Training Association (UPRTA) added that the FAA
should issue restricted ATP certificates with reduced flight hour
requirements to all ATP candidates, provided they have received
academic and flight instruction in upset prevention and recovery from
qualified instructors.
    NATA recommended that the FAA expand the flight hour credit ``to
include a comprehensive framework similar to the recommendations of the
FOQ ARC and any other science-based advanced training courses that
provide a benefit to safety.'' NATA stated that, if the FAA did not
expand the proposal, the NPRM should be withdrawn in its entirety until
such time as a more comprehensive framework could be created. The AAI
contended that credit should be applied to other structured academies
run by training organizations or air carriers.
    Twelve commenters, including John A. O'Brien Aviation Consulting,
LLC, the AAI, PABC, UAA, Sporty's Academy, and the IFL Group argued
that students attending flight schools that are not associated with an
accrediting entity, also referred to as flight academies, should be
eligible for reduced time to qualify for a restricted ATP certificate.
    A4A argued all part 141-trained pilots should be eligible for a
restricted ATP because part 141 pilot schools are subject to the same
standards, regardless of their affiliation with a four-year college.
IFL Group similarly argued that the FAA should extend credit to any
commercial, instrument, multi-engine pilot who has graduated from a
part 141 pilot school. Aerosim also argued graduates from independent
part 141 schools that offer a structured training program, with air
carrier procedures, policies, and standards, should be eligible for
academic credit.
    The FAA does not support a reduction in flight hours for pilots who
complete training at an ``aviation academy,'' or for pilots who
complete their ground and flight training at a part 141 pilot school.
The reduction for graduates who receive bachelor's or associate's
degrees with aviation majors was not based solely on the completion of
ground and flight training for certification at a part 141 pilot
school. Rather, the reduction was based on the content and substance of
a broader academic curriculum completed concurrently with ground and
flight training for certification. The FAA notes that the regulations
already reflect a reduction in flight hours for a commercial pilot
certificate completed at a part 141 pilot school or part 142 training
center. Pilots who complete a commercial pilot certificate as part of
an approved part 141 or part 142 curriculum can apply for a commercial
pilot certificate with 190 total flight hours, as opposed to the 250
hours required for those pilots who train under part 61.

    The FAA acknowledges that flight academies generally provide
focused training to prepare pilots for a professional pilot career;
however, the FAA does not agree that the academic curriculum is
sufficient to meet the intent of the Act. Flight academies do not spend
an abundance of time in aviation coursework, separate from the
minimally required ground school, over a period of several years. These
academies lack the accredited and structured academic environment that
the aviation colleges and universities provide. The courses taught by
aviation academies are primarily focused on flight training and
obtaining certificates and ratings rapidly. Many programs advertise a
person can obtain their private pilot certificate, commercial pilot
certificate, instrument rating, and certified flight instructor
certificates in 12 months or less.
    The FAA also does not support a reduction in flight hours for
specialized courses such as upset recovery training and advanced jet
training. The FAA encourages pilots to seek additional training that
will enhance their skills and abilities; however, the FAA does not have
the resources to evaluate every possible course that could be the basis
for a reduction in flight hours. The FAA also does not support a
reduction in flight hours for those pilots who obtain FAA certificates
through a FITS program or who complete air carrier training through
AQP. These programs are designed to meet existing regulatory
requirements and do not represent additional training courses that
merit a reduction in flight time. In addition, allowing a large number
of crediting options creates an increasingly complicated process for
FAA examiners and designees in determining and validating how much
credit a pilot can get to be eligible for an R-ATP certificate.
f. Certified Flight Instructors
    Many commenters indicated that the individuals who perform best in
air carrier initial training are those that have CFI certificates and
were hired with 500 to 1,000 hours. The commenters contended that the
Pilot Source Study in 2010 and 2012 provided support with statistically
significant results for the argument that CFIs perform better in part
121 training. The pilots that had CFI certificates had more training
completions and required fewer extra training events in part 121
training. NTAS, AABI, Spartan College, and one individual commenter
stated that credit for CFI ratings and flight instruction given should
qualify for a reduction in flight hours. Another individual commenter
suggested that a restricted ATP should be available to active CFIs.
    The FAA recognizes that, while completing the ground and flight
training for a CFI certificate is valuable, it is not the predominant
reason that a CFI is recognized for his or her knowledge and skill. It
is the time spent in the training environment teaching other pilots
that reinforces a CFI's skills and abilities. Therefore, the FAA does
not agree with commenters who suggest that this time meets the intent
of the academic crediting provision in the statute. The operational
experience gained from teaching is what is valuable, not the academic
coursework to obtain the certificate. As with specialized courses, the
FAA encourages pilots to seek additional training that will enhance
their skills and abilities like CFI certificates; however, CFI ground
schools are designed to meet existing regulatory requirements and do
not represent additional training courses that merit a reduction in
flight time as permitted under the Act. In addition, allowing a large
number of crediting options creates a much more complicated process for
FAA examiners and designees in determining and validating how much
credit a pilot can get to be eligible.
7. Summary of FAA Decision
    The FAA is adopting the following alternative total flight hour
requirements for an R-ATP certificate with airplane category
multiengine class rating or an ATP certificate obtained concurrently
with an airplane type rating:
     750 hours for a military pilot who has graduated from a
flight training program in the Armed Forces;
     1,000 hours for a graduate who holds a bachelor's degree
with an aviation major (60+ aviation semester credits) from an
institution of higher education who also receives a commercial
certificate and instrument rating from an associated part 141 pilot
school;
     1,250 hours for a graduate who holds a bachelor's or an
associate's degree with an aviation major (30+ aviation semester
credits) from an institution of higher education who also receives a
commercial certificate and instrument rating from an associated part
141 pilot school; and
     Pilots who have reached age 21, have logged 1,500 hours
total time as a pilot, and satisfy the remaining aeronautical
experience requirements defined in Sec.  61.160.

F. Aircraft Type Rating for All Pilots Operating Under Part 121 (Sec.
121.436)

    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed requiring all SICs in part 121
operations hold an aircraft type rating for the aircraft flown in
revenue service by August 1, 2013. A total of 113 commenters responded
to this proposed requirement.
1. Aircraft Type Rating Requirement for Part 121 SICs
    Seventy-eight commenters, including A4A, AOPA, APA, CAA, CAPA, Cape
Air, Delta, ExpressJet, Parks College, NADA/F, PABC, Aviation
Professional Development, FSC, FedEx, IATA, NAFI, UAA, USAPA, and WMU,
agreed with the proposed aircraft type rating requirement. ALPA, CAE,
and FSI support the proposed requirement because it would require a
type rating for part 121 SICs flying domestically; thus harmonizing the
U.S. with current ICAO standards. Boeing supported the proposed
aircraft type rating requirement for part 121 SICs because it
encourages one level of safety for operations involving aircraft that
require type ratings. ERAU, Purdue, Rocky Mountain College, and SIU,
agreed with the proposed rule requiring SICs in part 121 air carrier
operations to hold an aircraft type rating, provided the air carrier is
responsible for supplying the type rating to the SIC. An individual
commenter said that operators should provide the type rating to
decrease costs for new hire pilots. Rocky Mountain College noted that
pilot supply would diminish if the cost of the type rating is
transferred to the pilot.
    Twenty-two commenters, including KSU and GAMA generally disagreed
with requiring SICs in part 121 air carrier operations to hold an
aircraft type rating. Four commenters, including AAL and the IFL Group,
said that requiring SICs in part 121 air carrier operations to hold an
aircraft type rating is not necessary and that current regulations and
air carrier training programs are sufficient. Ameriflight stated
experience, not certification, is the problem. Prairie Air Services
``doubted'' that any accidents would have been prevented if the SIC had
a type rating. Bemidji Aviation Services, Inc. indicated that SIC
checks achieve the same goal. UPRTA supports upset prevention and
recovery training as an alternative to obtaining a type rating. Aerosim
and an individual commenter noted that a type rating has not
historically been an indicator that SICs are properly trained.
    The FAA agrees with the large number of commenters who said that

requiring an aircraft type rating for all SICs serving in part 121
operations would improve safety in part 121 air carrier operations. In
addition, this requirement responds to the objectives of section 216 of
the Act, which requires the Administrator to determine the appropriate
multiengine airplane flight experience for pilot flightcrew members.
    The historic division of responsibilities between the PIC and SIC
have changed. In today's air carrier environment, both the PIC and SIC
share the role of pilot flying and pilot monitoring. Therefore, the FAA
has determined that requiring an SIC to train to the same level of
aircraft handling proficiency as the PIC by obtaining an aircraft type
rating is appropriate. The FAA assumes most pilots will obtain an
aircraft type rating at the air carrier as part of initial training.
The practical test for an SIC to obtain an aircraft type rating will
include the same tasks and maneuvers as those required for a PIC
receiving a type rating. Because this practical test would be
administered by an FAA inspector or designee, the test would serve as
an additional level of oversight of the SICs aircraft handling skills
and abilities. The FOQ ARC members unanimously recommended that an SIC
hold a type rating in the aircraft to be flown in part 121 air carrier
operations.
2. Compliance Time
    JetBlue and AAL requested a grandfather clause for existing SICs to
enable additional compliance time and reduce the financial burden that
would be incurred by requiring unplanned training and evaluation
sessions. JetBlue estimated it would cost $6 million to provide a type
rating to its current 1,120 SICs who do not hold a type rating for the
aircraft they fly. This estimate is based on the cost provided in the
FAA's initial regulatory evaluation, which estimated the incremental
per-pilot cost of a type rating for existing SICs at $5,389. AAL is
concerned about the additional cost burden of providing a type rating
to their 852 current SICs who do not have type ratings. AAL added that
the FAA should consider allowing qualified simulator instructors or
check airmen to validate flying skills for those pilots with at least
1,000 hours in type during their next recurrent training cycle. Upon
completion of the evaluation event, AAL suggested having a letter
issued to the pilot to take to an FAA office to obtain their ATP
certificate. Delta estimated the short-term cost to provide the type
rating to its more than 1,800 SICs who already have ATP certificates
but not the type rating for the aircraft flown to be $11.6 million
dollars.
    AAI, A4A, Delta, FedEx, and UPS also requested that the proposed
compliance deadline of August 1, 2013 be extended. They specifically
proposed a compliance deadline of 5 years or during transition or
upgrade training. JetBlue proposed aligning the compliance time frame
with initial, transition, or upgrade training. Some commenters
indicated that, for current SICs, the compliance period for the type
rating requirement should be five years or be aligned with upgrade
training. UVU, SJSU, and four individual commenters discussed
implementation of a grandfather clause for current students currently
enrolled in college to become a pilot.
    The FAA estimates that even if an air carrier does not currently
provide aircraft type ratings to its SICs, the impact of the proposed
rule to its training program would be low. Currently, all SICs in part
121 operations receive extensive training and a thorough evaluation at
the end of the air carrier's initial training program. During the
evaluation, SICs must demonstrate that they can perform most of the
maneuvers and tasks that would be required for an aircraft type rating.
The FAA acknowledges that an SIC may need some additional hours of
training on tasks and maneuvers required for an aircraft type rating
that are not currently required during the SIC evaluation. The FAA
believes, however, that the practical test for the aircraft type rating
could be performed in the same simulator session currently used for the
evaluation. The FAA acknowledges that, unlike an evaluation, which is
typically conducted by a check airman, the practical test for an
aircraft type rating would have to be administered by an FAA inspector
or FAA designee.
    As a result of the statutory deadline requiring all part 121 SICs
to hold ATP certificates by August 2, 2013, most current part 121 SICs
that hold only a commercial pilot certificate will likely receive an
aircraft type rating during an ATP certification event administered by
the air carrier prior to the deadline. Many air carriers have already
initiated a change to their approved training programs to provide ATP
certificates and type ratings to SICs who hold only commercial pilot
certificates. The FAA assumes the proposed compliance date for the type
rating will not be an issue because this population of SICs will
receive a type rating simultaneously with an ATP certificate.
    In the initial regulatory evaluation, the FAA assumed that air
carriers would provide a type rating to their SICs who already hold ATP
certificates during annual recurrent training. With the publication of
the final rule so close to the proposed compliance date, it is likely
that air carriers will have to schedule additional training and testing
events for these SICs to obtain a type rating by August 2013 unless the
FAA extends the compliance date. To the extent commenters suggested
aligning the type rating requirement and upgrade training, the FAA has
determined that would result in an unnecessary delay given the
assumptions in the initial regulatory evaluation. The time period for
upgrade to PIC is approximately 5 years for regional carriers and 10
years for major air carriers.
    To balance the cost and timing concerns raised by commenters with
the benefits of requiring SICs to hold an aircraft type rating, the FAA
has decided to extend the compliance date to January 1, 2016 for pilots
who have been employed as part 121 SICs on or before July 31, 2013.
This change is reflected in the new Sec.  121.436(c). The extended
compliance period will allow air carriers to make the appropriate
modifications to their approved training programs and incorporate the
type rating requirement into their recurrent training and transition
training. In addition, it will alleviate the burden placed on the
aircrew program designees and FAA employees who will need to administer
the certification event for the large number of SICs who may require
aircraft type ratings. The FAA notes that the extended compliance date
will most benefit current SICs who hold ATP certificates and already
have relevant experience operating the aircraft they are flying.
    The FAA does not support a grandfather provision that would result
in differing SIC certification requirements. Nor does it support
certification by air carrier employees who are not designees of the
Administrator. There is no precedent for an evaluation event that
results in the issuance of an FAA certificate or rating being conducted
by someone other than a designee of the Administrator. The commenters
did not offer any persuasive arguments for why non-FAA employees or
designees should be allowed to administer these evaluation events.
3. Aircraft Type Rating Requirement for SICs Serving in Operations
Outside of Part 121
    Fifteen commenters stated that SICs serving in operations outside
of 14 CFR part 121 should hold a type rating if the PIC is also
required to hold a type rating under the rule part. CAPA supported

the idea of requiring SICs serving in operations conducted under parts
91, 125, and 135 to hold a type rating because flying tasks are based
on the pilot flying and pilot monitoring designations, not on seat
specific maneuvers, as was once the case. FSI commented that even under
normal operations there may be scenarios where the SIC does not have
the knowledge and experience to successfully land the aircraft. FSI and
an individual commenter also noted that SICs should hold a type rating
as a way of ensuring they can safely fly the aircraft in the event the
PIC is incapacitated. IATA stated in its comments that a type rating
gives SICs more insight into the technical and operational
characteristics and specifics of the aircraft and generates more
confidence, which can be translated into increased operational safety.
APA stated that all pilots should be required to accomplish the same
training to the same standards. Delta commented that requiring SICs
flying operations outside of part 121 to hold a type rating issued in
accordance with the practical test standard would ensure that all
pilots serving as flightcrew members and carrying passengers for hire
meet the same standard.
    Forty-five commenters including Rocky Mountain College, IFL Group,
and Prairie Air Services, disagreed with requiring SICs serving in
operations outside of part 121 to hold an aircraft type rating. KSU,
Purdue, FSC, and Aviation Professional Development, LLC stated that the
current rules for parts 91, 125 and 135 are sufficient and there is no
need for a type rating requirement. GAMA also commented that there are
sufficient regulations in place for parts 91, 125 and 135 operations
and added there are no safety issues related to the SIC not having a
type rating. Spartan College also stated that current regulations are
sufficient and that the training received by SICs is adequately
preparing them for line operations. Bemidji Aviation Services Inc.
commented that a type rating evaluation is no different than the
checkride that most airlines already make an SIC pass. Aerosim
commented that type-rating training has not historically been any
indicator of a properly trained pilot. Aerosim stated that real
scenario-based training coupled with a structured training program
would result in a more competent pilot.
    AAL, RAA, Pilot Career Initiative, Cape Air, and PABC expressed
concern that a type rating requirement for SICs serving in parts 91,
125, or 135 would restrict an important time building avenue for pilots
aspiring to serve in part 121 operations. Additionally, the Pilot
Career Initiative, Cape Air, ExpressJet Airlines, and Airlines for
America noted that the Act only addresses part 121 operations. For this
reason the type rating requirement should be limited to part 121
operations.
    NATA commented that an SIC type rating requirement outside of part
121 is not relevant because the FAA did not propose such a requirement
in the NPRM, nor did the FAA present conclusive evidence of a need for
requiring a type rating for SIC serving in operations under parts 91,
125 or 135. Parks College commented that there is a clear potential
safety benefit to requiring SICs under parts 91, 125 and 135 to possess
a type rating; however, there is not enough data regarding the
potential economic impacts of the proposal to offer a cost-benefit
based recommendation. ERAU commented that it is unnecessary because
operations under other rule parts are not similar.
    The FAA agrees with commenters that the flight-related tasks are no
longer based on seat position, but rather by the pilot flying versus
pilot monitoring designations. Additionally, the FAA agrees that type-
specific training could increase the technical and operational
knowledge level of SICs on specific aircraft. The Act was specific to
modifying the ATP certificate and part 121 operations. As such, the
NPRM did not propose that SICs under other operating parts obtain an
ATP certificate or aircraft type rating. Even though the FAA
specifically solicited comments on requiring SICs serving outside of
part 121 to obtain a type rating, a specific requirement was not
included in the draft regulatory text in the NPRM. Additionally, the
FAA did not provide any economic impact information in the regulatory
evaluation that was provided with the NPRM. While the FAA did receive
comments that supported extending the type rating requirement to
operations outside of part 121, a majority of the commenters did not
support such a requirement. As a result the FAA intends no action at
this time.

G. Minimum of 1,000 Hours in Air Carrier Operations To Serve as PIC in
Part 121 Operations (Sec.  121.436)

    Prior to the issuance of this final rule, SICs in part 121
operations were only required to hold a commercial pilot certificate
with an instrument rating, which can be obtained in as few as 190
flight hours. If hired by a part 121 air carrier with these minimums,
SICs would acquire over 1,000 hours in air carrier operations before
meeting the regulatory requirements for the ATP certificate, which is
required to serve as PIC in part 121 operations. Therefore, regulations
minimized the chance that two pilots with little or no air carrier
experience could be paired together as a flightcrew. The Act's
requirement for part 121 SICs to hold ATP certificates significantly
changes the flightcrew composition for those operators who hire pilots
with the minimum flight time requirements. By raising the certificate
requirement of part 121 SICs, the natural mentoring period may no
longer exist without additional regulation. The FAA notes that this
requirement will create time for mentoring to occur for pilots new to
the air carrier environment, which supports in part the objectives of
Section 206 of the Act. That statutory requirement will be addressed in
the Flight Crewmember Mentoring Leadership, and Professional
Development rulemaking project.
    The intent of the proposed 1,000-hour air carrier experience
requirement in Sec.  121.436 was to prevent two pilots in part 121
operations with little or no air carrier experience from being paired
together as a flightcrew in line operations. In addition, it would
ensure that pilots obtain at least one full year of relevant air
carrier operational experience before assuming the authority and
responsibility of a PIC in operations conducted in part 121 operations.
As proposed, the 1,000 hours in air carrier operations could be a
combination of time as PIC in operations conducted under Sec.
91.1053(a)(2)(i), Sec.  135.243(a)(1), or as an SIC in part 121
operations.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The FAA has included an exception from this requirement for
pilots who are serving as pilot in command in part 121 operations on
July 31, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Air Carrier Experience Requirement
    Twenty-nine commenters, including AAL, A4A, ALPA, CAA, CAPA, PABC,
Pilot Career Initiative, The Families of Continental Flight 3407,
USAPA, UVU, and WMU, stated the proposed 1,000 hour requirement is
appropriate.
    Over 40 commenters, including CAE and KSU, believe the proposed
rule is excessive with some proposing alternative hours of air carrier
experience. Delta specifically stated that 750 hours is enough time for
a pilot to complete initial training, meet operating experience
requirements, and acquire approximately 18 months of flying experience.
Additionally, over the 18-month period the pilot would be exposed to
seasonal weather differences, mechanical issues, passenger issues, and
air traffic control issues. GAMA, Rocky Mountain College, FSC, Purdue,

and Spartan College commented that the proposed time was too long and
that upgrade from SIC to PIC should be based on competency, not on the
number of flight hours. The UAA and SIU commented that the requirements
for a PIC should be established by the air carrier and the air
carrier's POI. UAA and SUI also commented that pilots who obtain an
unrestricted ATP certificate with 1,500 hours would need a minimum of
2,500 total flight hours to upgrade to a part 121 PIC. SICs with an R-
ATP certificate would need a minimum of 1,750 (military pilots) to
2,000 total flight hours (graduates of qualifying four-year aviation
degree programs) to upgrade to a part 121 PIC. UAA and SIU are
concerned that these flight hours may exceed what is necessary to train
safe, competent PICs.
    Fifteen commenters contended the requirement is unnecessary.
Ameriflight, Inc., Boeing, JetBlue, and Kestrel commented that setting
a flight time requirement for upgrade will not guarantee an increased
level of operational safety or competency. These commenters assert that
minimum hour requirements are not a guarantee that a desired experience
has been gained and that flight time alone does not provide an
opportunity to assess the pilot's ability to act as PIC. ExpressJet
Airlines stated that the current requirements for a PIC in part 121 are
sufficient because air carrier PIC candidates complete a rigorous
training program, which is approved by the FAA. These pilots also
receive continuous oversight through recurrent training and checking
events. ERAU noted the proposed requirement is arbitrary, too long, and
limits the air carrier's flexibility.
    RAA supported the requirement for 1,000 hours of experience in air
carrier operations for part 121 passenger service, but believes that
requirement is excessive for part 121 all-cargo supplemental
operations. RAA is concerned that because supplemental carriers
providing feeder service are often limited to shorter flight legs, it
could take three or more years for a pilot to gain 1,000 hours as an
SIC. RAA states that these operations pose no threat to the flying
public and a more suitable time requirement should be considered for
part 121 supplemental carriers.
    The FAA has considered all of the comments and determined that
keeping the 1,000-hour air carrier experience requirement is
appropriate for all operations under part 121. This requirement will
ensure that an SIC has experienced an entire year of relevant air
carrier operational experience before assuming the authority and
responsibility of a part 121 operation as PIC. The FAA does not
differentiate part 121 flightcrew member certification and
qualification requirements based upon whether they are conducting
passenger or supplemental (cargo) operations. The FAA acknowledges that
this requirement will increase the minimum time required for a pilot
prior to serving as PIC in part 121 operations. If a pilot is entering
part 121 service with no previous air carrier experience, it may take
more than one year for the pilot to upgrade to PIC. The FAA estimated
in the initial regulatory evaluation for the NPRM that flightcrew
members serving in part 121 operations fly on average 750 hours per
year. However, the FAA notes that part 121 pilots are permitted by
regulations to fly up to 1,000 hours per calendar year (Sec.  121.471).
The FAA also notes that for most operators the 1,000-hour requirement
will not be a factor given actual upgrade times for SICs exceed the
minimum time it would take to acquire 1,000 hours, and thus we believe
there will be minimal costs and benefits from this provision.
2. Part 135 and Part 91, Subpart K Time
    The FAA received over fifty comments on whether to credit flight
time earned in part 135 and subpart K of part 91 towards the 1,000
hours of air carrier experience requirement. The majority of commenters
supported including the PIC flight time in these operations as proposed
in the NPRM as part of the requirement. AAL, GAMA, KSU, and RACCA
stated this time is similar to part 121 operations and provides a
useful base of experience. FedEx, ExpressJet, ALPA, IFL Group, and
Purdue specifically commented that other PIC time in part 135
operations should also count toward the 1,000-hour requirement.
Conversely, five commenters, including APA, CAPA, and USAPA, stated
operations under part 135 and subpart K of part 91 and should not count
towards the proposed 1,000-hour experience requirement.
    In the NPRM the FAA also asked commenters if SIC time outside of
part 121 should count towards the 1,000 hour requirement to upgrade to
PIC in part 121. The majority of commenters on this question offered
that some SIC time outside of part 121 operations should count toward
the requirement. Cape Air said that flight time as an SIC in scheduled
part 135 operations should count. ExpressJet said that SIC time in
subpart K of part 91 and part 135 operations should count. FedEx
commented that subpart K to part 91, part 125, and part 135 operations
can involve complex aircraft and experience relevant to part 121
operations; therefore, that time should count. FSI said that multicrew
time accrued by SICs in subpart K of part 91 and parts 135 and 125
should count toward the 1,000 hours. ALPA commented that SIC time in
part 135 and subpart K of part 91 should count if the time was acquired
in a multiengine turboprop or turbojet airplane. NATA commented that
SIC time outside part 121 should count because experience in multiple
operational scenarios is beneficial. Purdue said that SIC time should
count as long as it was acquired while flying in a multi-pilot crew
under subpart K of part 91 or part 135. UPRTA said that SIC time
outside of part 121 should count only if the SIC has completed upset
prevention and recovery training.
    Aviation Professional Development and FSC said that SIC time
accrued outside of part 121 operations should not count because other
operations are dissimilar. The PABC stated that SIC time accrued
outside of part 121 operations should not count towards this
requirement because the mentoring and experience needed to become an
effective part 121 PIC cannot be received outside of part 121
operations. USAPA does not support counting flight time in subpart K of
part 91 or part 135 operations towards the 1,000 hour requirement.
    The FAA has decided that pilots should not be permitted to count
any time as a required SIC in operations conducted outside of 14 CFR
part 121. These SICs are not exercising the privileges of an ATP
certificate and have not demonstrated leadership and command abilities
necessary to exercise operational control of a flight in conditions
most similar to operations conducted under part 121. The FAA has
concluded that the time an SIC spends observing a PIC in part 121
operations plays an important role in preparing the SIC for eventual
upgrade to PIC. A PIC in part 121 air carrier operations is expected to
possess leadership and command abilities, including aeronautical
decision making and the sound judgment necessary to exercise
operational control of the flight. The FAA has determined that
developing these abilities is most effectively done by performing the
duties of an SIC in part 121 air carrier operations while under the
supervision of an experienced PIC.
    The FAA has determined that the ability to fly at the ATP
certificate level and have demonstrated this proficiency during
evaluation is an important regulatory differentiation. The FAA first
proposed that certain operations under part 135 should require an ATP
certificate in 1977. In that NPRM, the

FAA stated the requirement to hold an ATP certificate to act as PIC in
some part 135 operations was ``[. . . ] based in part on operational
complexity and the number of persons carried, would provide a level of
safety more comparable to that provided by Part 121.'' For these same
reasons the FAA has determined that flight time acquired as a PIC in
operations under Sec.  91.1053(a)(2)(i),and Sec.  135.243(a)(1) and
flight time acquired as an SIC in part 121 operations should count
towards the 1,000 hour air carrier experience requirement. Operations
under Sec.  91.1053(a)(2)(i) or Sec.  135.243(a)(1) require an ATP
certificate, are multicrew operations, and generally use turbine
aircraft and therefore are the most applicable to part 121 operations.
The FAA has determined that, while other part 91 and part 135
operations may involve certain elements that are relatable to part 121
operations, the varied nature of operations does not make credit toward
the 1,000 hour requirement appropriate. As such, the proposed
requirement that the 1,000 hours in air carrier operations may be a
combination of time as PIC in operations conducted under Sec.
91.1053(a)(2)(i) or Sec.  135.243(a)(1) or as SIC in part 121
operations remains unchanged from the NPRM.
3. Military Time
    Delta, A4A, AAL, and FedEx commented that flight time in military
operations should count toward the 1,000-hour air carrier experience
requirement. UPS specifically asked whether military flight time
counted towards the 1,000-hour air carrier operating experience
requirement. FSI indicated that multicrew flight time in the military
should count. An individual commenter stated that military pilots who
fly transport category aircraft as PIC should be able to credit up to
500 hours of their transport category military flight time. The
commenter stated that this would still require them to fly 500 hours
for an air carrier before being eligible to act as PIC for a part 121
operation.
    The FAA recognizes that many pilots in the course of their military
careers will obtain significant multicrew experience as PICs of
transport category aircraft and therefore has added paragraph (c) to
new Sec.  121.436 to allow 500 hours of military flight time accrued as
PIC of a multiengine turbine-powered, fixed-wing airplane in an
operation requiring more than one pilot to be credited to the 1,000-
hour requirement. While there is value in this experience, the FAA does
agree with some of the commenters that these pilots operate in a unique
system that is different from a part 121 air carrier environment. The
FAA has determined that military pilots would benefit from spending
some time serving as a required crewmember in a civilian air carrier
operation before upgrading to PIC. This time would prepare them for
operating in compliance with the regulations that govern civil
aviation, the air carrier's particular operating specifications, and
the airplane's operations manual.
4. Other Time
    FedEx, A4A, and FSI said that flight time in part 125 should count
toward the 1,000 hours of air carrier experience required to serve as
PIC in part 121 operations. The FAA determined that flight time in part
125 should not count because, although these operations share certain
characteristics with part 121 operations, they are not sufficiently
similar to count toward the 1,000 hours of air carrier experience. Part
125 does not involve common carriage, a pilot is only required to have
a commercial pilot certificate, and the operating rules in part 125
differ significantly from the operating rules in part 121.
    FedEx, AA, A4A, and FSI commented that flight time in international
air carrier operations should count toward the 1,000 hours required to
serve as PIC in part 121 operations. The FAA concluded that, although
foreign air carrier operations are similar to U.S. air carrier
operations, there are significant differences related to the
environment under which foreign air carrier operations are conducted,
including possible cultural differences. Most importantly, pilots
serving for foreign air carriers do not operate under U.S. regulations
and may not have experience in the U.S. national airspace system. The
FAA concluded that requiring these pilots to serve first as an SIC in
part 121 operations before upgrading to PIC is appropriate.
    CAE commented that the FAA should consider a minimum time in
aircraft type if a pilot does not have sufficient flight time in
subpart K of part 91, part 135, or part 121 to meet the requirement.
While time in type is valuable, the proposed requirement is directed at
gaining relevant experience in complex air carrier operational
environments rather than in aircraft handling. The FAA has determined
that the proposed requirement for SICs to obtain a type rating will
provide additional experience and proficiency in aircraft-specific
handling and knowledge. Therefore, the FAA has decided not to allow
credit for time in the type of aircraft towards the 1,000 hours of air
carrier operating experience.

H. Miscellaneous Issues

1. Pilot Supply
    In the NPRM the FAA sought comment on the potential impact to pilot
supply on part 121 and part 135 air carriers as well as part 141 pilot
schools and part 142 training centers as a result of the requirement
for all SICs in part 121 to hold an ATP certificate. The FAA received
267 comments regarding pilot supply from airlines, industry/trade
groups, colleges and universities, pilot training centers, and pilots.
a. Part 121 Pilot Supply
    More than 100 commenters specifically stated the proposed ATP
requirements for part 121 SICs would hurt part 121 pilot supply. The
University of Dubuque, SIU, and 58 other commenters stated the ATP