31006 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Blvd., ARB301, Oklahoma City, I. Executive Summary Oklahoma 73179; telephone (405) 954– A. Purpose of the Final Rule Federal Aviation Administration 4646; email [email protected]. This final rule amends Title 14 of the 14 CFR Parts 11, 91, and 111 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) by adding new part 111, Pilot Records [Docket No.: FAA–2020–0246; Amdt. Nos. Table of Contents 11–65, 91–363, and 111–1] Database (PRD). This final rule I. Executive Summary facilitates the transition from the RIN 2120–AK31 A. Purpose of the Final Rule B. Overview of the Final Rule information-sharing requirements of the Pilot Records Improvement Act (PRIA) 1 Pilot Records Database C. Summary of Benefits, Costs, and Cost Savings to an FAA-established electronic AGENCY: Federal Aviation II. Authority for This Rulemaking database, as required by the PRD Act.2 Administration (FAA), U.S. Department III. Background This final rule modernizes pilot of Transportation (DOT). A. Statement of the Problem record-sharing as it occurs currently B. History of PRIA and PRD ACTION: Final rule. under PRIA. The PRD will serve as a IV. Comments Regarding General Issues, repository for pilot records and will SUMMARY: The FAA adopts final Applicability, Pilot Privacy, and the contain records from a pilot’s current regulations for the use of an electronic Transition From PRIA and former employers, as well as the A. General Support or Opposition FAA. The FAA envisions that the PRD Pilot Records Database (PRD) and B. Applicability of the Rule implements statutory requirements to C. Pilot Privacy not only will be an indicator of pilots’ facilitate the sharing of pilot records D. Transition From PRIA to PRD abilities or deficiencies, but also that it among air carriers and other operators V. Section-by-Section Discussion of will prompt conversations between in an electronic data system managed by Regulatory Text applicants and hiring employers. PRD is the FAA. This final rule requires air A. Subpart A—General intended to help ensure that no records carriers, specific operators holding out B. Subpart B—Access to and Evaluation of about a pilot’s performance with to the public, entities conducting public Records previous employers that could influence aircraft operations, air tour operators, C. Subpart C—Reporting of Records by a future employer’s decision go Operators unidentified. fractional ownerships, and corporate D. Subpart D—Pilot Access and flight departments to enter relevant data Responsibilities B. Overview of the Final Rule on individuals employed as pilots into E. Other Amendments the PRD. In addition, this rule identifies F. Other Comments This final rule requires all 14 CFR the air carriers and operators required to G. Comments Related to Regulatory Notices part 119 certificate holders, fractional access the PRD to evaluate the available and Analyses ownership programs, persons holding a data for each pilot candidate prior to VI. Regulatory Notices and Analyses letter of authorization (LOA) to conduct making a hiring decision. A. Regulatory Evaluation air tour operations in accordance with B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination § 91.147, persons conducting certain DATES: C. International Trade Impact Assessment Effective date: This rule is effective operations under part 91 or part 125 D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment (referenced as ‘‘corporate flight August 9, 2021, except for the E. Paperwork Reduction Act amendments at instruction 7, which is F. International Compatibility and departments’’ or ‘‘corporate operators’’ 3 effective October 8, 2021; instructions 8 Cooperation in this preamble), and governmental and 9, which are effective June 10, 2022; G. Environmental Analysis entities conducting public aircraft instructions 4, 11, and 12, which are H. Privacy Analysis operations (PAO) to report records to effective September 9, 2024; instruction VII. Executive Order Determinations the pilot records database in new 14 13, which is effective September 8, A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism CFR part 111. This rule uses the term B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 2027; and instructions 6, 10, and 14, ‘‘reporting entity’’ when referencing That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, such requirements. which are effective September 10, 2029. Distribution, or Use Compliance dates: For the Part 119 certificate holders, fractional C. Executive Order 13609, Promoting ownership programs and persons requirements in § 111.15, compliance is International Regulatory Cooperation required by September 8, 2021. VIII. How To Obtain Additional Information conducting air tour operations must Compliance with subpart B of part 111 A. Rulemaking Documents review records prior to allowing an is required beginning June 10, 2022, B. Comments Submitted to the Docket individual to begin service as a pilot. except the requirements in C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement This rule refers to the different operators § 111.105(b)(1), for which compliance is Fairness Act 1 Public Law 104–264 section 502; 110 Stat. 3259. required beginning December 7, 2021. List of Abbreviations and Acronyms The requirements of PRIA were initially codified at Compliance with subpart C of part 111 Used Frequently in This Document 49 U.S.C. 44936, which became effective on is required beginning June 10, 2022. February 7, 1997. Substantive amendments were AC—Advisory Circular In § 111.255, compliance for reporting made to PRIA on December 5, 1997 (Pub. L. 105– ARC—Aviation Rulemaking Committee 142; 111 Stat. 2650) and April 5, 2000 (Pub. L. 106– historical records that date on or after CFR—Code of Federal Regulations 181; 114 Stat. 61). Currently, the requirements of January 1, 2015 is required by June 12, FOIA—Freedom of Information Act PRIA are codified at 49 U.S.C. 44703(h) and (j). 2023. Compliance for reporting InFO—Information for Operators 2 49 U.S.C. 44703(i) (Pub. L. 111–216, 124 Stat. historical records that date before NDR—National Driver Register 2348 (Aug. 1, 2020)). Referred to as ‘‘the PRD Act’’ January 1, 2015 is required by NPRM—Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the remainder of this preamble. NTSB—National Transportation Safety Board 3 The FAA uses the term corporate flight September 9, 2024. Concurrent departments to reference operators of two or more compliance with the requirements of the PAC—Public Aircraft Operations, Air Tour Operators, Corporate Flight Departments aircraft conducting operations in furtherance of or Pilot Records Improvement Act will end incidental to a business, solely pursuant to the PAO—Public Aircraft Operations on September 9, 2024. general operating and flight rules in part 91 or PAR—PRD Airman Record operating aircraft pursuant to a Letter of Deviation FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: PRD—Pilot Records Database Authority issued under § 125.3. This criteria is Christopher Morris, 3500 S MacArthur PRIA—Pilot Records Improvement Act provided in § 111.1(b)(4).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31007

subject to part 111 as ‘‘operators’’ will indicate what records exist about a • Update the method of reporting to generally, but also as ‘‘reviewing entity’’ pilot; the operator is responsible for the PRD for certain operators without a when referencing these requirements. determining if it is necessary to obtain part 119 certificate. Instead of providing The PRD will contain the required further information prior to permitting records contemporaneously for all pilots operator and FAA records for the life of an individual to begin service as a pilot. employed, corporate flight departments, the pilot and will function as a hiring The Pilot Records Database Notice of air tour operations, and public aircraft tool that an operator will use in making Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) operations will be permitted not to decisions regarding pilot employment. published on March 30, 2020, and the upload training, disciplinary, and Employers cannot search the PRD comment period closed June 29, 2020. separation from employment records to indiscriminately, as an operator that The FAA received approximately 800 the PRD unless and until requested by wishes to view records can see a pilot’s comments. After careful consideration a hiring operator. Certain termination record only if that pilot has granted of these comments and thoughtful and disciplinary action records must be consent to that hiring employer. Pilot review of the proposal, the FAA adopts reported contemporaneously, however. consent is time-limited and the duration this final rule with certain modifications • Revise the level of detail required is specified by the pilot. The FAA from the proposal. These modifications for reporting certain training and anticipates the PRD will improve pilot will reduce burdens while achieving the checking; disciplinary action; and privacy because only specific data safety goals Congress intended for the separation from employment events to elements are required to be submitted, PRD. The modifications will: ensure all relevant records are captured in contrast to current practice under • Remove the proposed user fee to while reducing subjectivity. PRIA, in which pilot records are access the database for review of pilot • Amend the compliance schedule, as exchanged in their entirety. The PRD records. set forth in the table below: TABLE 1—TIMELINE FOR REPORTING AND REVIEWING RESPONSIBILITIES

90 Days after 180 Days after One year after Two years after Three years and 90 days Date publication publication publication publication after publication

Event ...... Submit applica- Reviewing enti- Begin reporting current pilot Complete historical record report- Compliance with PRIA will no tion for data- ties use the records, historical records; begin ing for records dating on or after longer be available as an alter- base access. PRD for the reviewing operator records in the January 1, 2015. native to PRD; full compliance FAA records PRD. with PRD required. Historical review. record upload complete. Entity ...... Reporting entities Reviewing enti- Reporting entities and reviewing Reporting entities subject to Reporting entities, reviewing enti- and reviewing ties. entities. § 111.255. ties. entities.

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 31008 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31009

PRD. By September 9, 2024, the FAA reviewing records in the PRD on June forms to authorize requests for the intends to complete the transition from 10, 2022, while continuing to comply provision of pilots’ records. Under the PRIA to PRD. with PRIA. PRD, most of this process will occur To support the transition, all electronically. Over a 10-year period of operators subject to the applicability of C. Summary of Benefits, Costs, and Cost Savings analysis (2021–2030), the rule provides part 111 must submit a responsible present value cost savings to industry of person application not later than This rule promotes aviation safety by about $21.2 million or $3.0 million September 8, 2021. The FAA will begin facilitating operators’ consideration of annualized using a seven percent working with each subject operator and pilot skill and performance when discount rate. Using a three percent entity to facilitate a smooth transition. making hiring and personnel discount rate, the present value cost Additionally, reviewing entities must management decisions by using the savings to industry is about $27.4 use the PRD to review the FAA records, most accurate pilot records available million or about $3.2 million beginning December 7, 2021. and by making those records accessible annualized. After the discontinuance of Once the PRD begins accepting electronically. After the effective date of PRIA, the annual recurring cost savings records on June 10, 2022, reporting the rule, operators will incur costs to will more than offset the recurring entities must submit any new records report pilot records to the PRD and to annual costs of the rule. generated on or after that date to the train and register as users of the PRD. PRD. During this time, reporting entities Operators will receive future cost The following table summarizes the must continue to respond to PRIA savings once PRIA is phased out. The benefits, costs, and cost savings of the requests for historical records or, FAA will incur costs related to the rule to industry and the FAA. alternatively, report those historical operations and maintenance of the PRD. records directly to the PRD for review. Over a 10-year period of analysis TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF BENEFITS, The PRD will display either a statement (2021–2030), this rule results in present COSTS, AND COST SAVINGS indicating a reporting entity has value net costs (costs less savings) to completed reporting all records for a industry and the FAA of about $67.0 Benefits pilot or a statement that the reviewing million or $9.5 million annualized using • entity needs to submit a PRIA request to a seven percent discount rate. Using a Promotes aviation safety by facilitating op- the reporting entity for records. The three percent discount rate, this rule erators’ consideration of pilot skill and per- formance when making hiring and per- FAA envisions that as time goes on, results in present value net costs of sonnel management decisions. records will be pre-populated in the about $71.0 million or about $8.3 • Provides faster retrieval of pilot records PRD and any duplicative review of million annualized. compared to PRIA. records will phase out. Duplicative This rule provides recurring annual • Reduces inaccurate information and inter- reporting is never required; a reporting cost savings to industry because the pretation compared to PRIA. entity may always, beginning on June PRD would replace PRIA three years • Provides easier storage of and access to 10, 2022, upload a record to the PRD and 90 days after the rule is published. pilot records than PRIA. instead of responding to a PRIA request. Under PRIA, air carriers, operators, and • Allows pilots to consent to release and re- Reviewing entities must also begin pilots complete and mail, fax, or email view of records.

Summary of costs and cost savings * ($millions) 10-Year 10-Year Category present value Annualized present value Annualized (7%) (7%) (3%) (3%)

Costs ...... 88.2 12.6 98.5 11.5 Cost Savings ...... (21.2) (3.0) (27.4) (3.2)

Net Costs ...... 67.0 9.5 71.0 8.3 * Table Notes: Columns may not sum due to rounding. Savings are shown in parentheses to distinguish from costs. Estimates are provided at seven and three percent discount rates per Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance. Industry and FAA costs are higher in the begin- ning of the period of analysis than industry cost savings that occur later in the period of analysis after the discontinuance of PRIA three years and 90 days after the rule is published. This results in larger annualized estimates of costs and net costs at a seven percent discount rate com- pared to a three percent discount rate.

II. Authority for This Rulemaking herein called the PRD Act,4 codified at ‘‘records that are generated by the air 49 U.S.C. 44703(h)–(k). The PRD Act carrier or other person after [August 1, The FAA’s authority to issue rules on identifies several rulemaking 2010]’’ as well as ‘‘records that the air aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the requirements. carrier or other person [was] United States Code (49 U.S.C.). This The PRD Act requires the maintaining, on [August 1, 2010],’’ on rulemaking is promulgated under the Administrator to promulgate regulations any person employed as a pilot. The general authority described in 49 U.S.C. to establish an electronic pilot records PRD Act also requires air carriers to 106(f), which establishes the authority database containing records from the access the database and evaluate any of the Administrator to promulgate FAA and records maintained by air relevant records maintained therein regulations and rules, and the specific carriers and other persons that employ pertaining to an individual before authority provided by section 203 of the pilots. At a minimum, air carriers and allowing that individual to begin service Airline Safety and Federal Aviation persons employing pilots must report as a pilot. Administration Extension Act of 2010, The FAA is further required to issue 4 Public Law 111–216, 124 Stat. 2348 (Aug. 1, regulations to protect and secure the 2010). personal privacy of any individual

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 31010 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

whose records are accessed in the new the engine failed.’’ 6 The NTSB also selection and management during electronic database; to protect and found that ‘‘the pilot had a history of approaches in icing conditions.’’ 10 secure the confidentiality of those below-average flight proficiency, Additional safety issues the NTSB records; and, to prevent further including numerous failed flight tests, identified included deficiencies in the dissemination of those records once before the flight accident, which air carrier’s recordkeeping system and accessed by an air carrier. The PRD Act contributed to his inability to maintain its analysis of the flightcrew’s also requires the implementing maximum flight performance and reach qualifications and previous regulations to prescribe a timetable for land after the right engine failed.’’ 7 performance. Specifically, Colgan Air’s the implementation of the PRD as well In response to the Air Sunshine 527 check airman stated that the captain had as a schedule for expiration of the accident, the NTSB issued failed his initial proficiency check on application of the Pilot Records recommendation A–05–01, in which it the Saab 340 on October 15, 2007, Improvement Act of 1996. advised the FAA to require all ‘‘part 121 received additional training, and passed and 135 air carriers to obtain any his upgrade proficiency check on the III. Background notices of disapproval for flight checks next day; however, the company’s A. Statement of the Problem for certificates and ratings for all pilot- electronic records indicated that the applicants and evaluate this information second check was conducted 12 days The Pilot Records Improvement Act 8 (PRIA) was enacted in 1997 in response before making a hiring decision.’’ The after the failure. The NTSB deemed to a series of accidents attributed to NTSB recognized the importance of these discrepancies in the captain’s pilot error.5 The National validating FAA ratings and training records as noteworthy because Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) certifications, as required by PRIA, but the captain had demonstrated previous noted that ‘‘additional data contained in training difficulties during his tenure at found that although the pilots had a 11 history of poor training performance or FAA records, including records of flight Colgan Air. In addition to this failed other indicators of impaired judgment, check failures and rechecks, would be check, the captain failed his practical their employers had not investigated the beneficial for a potential employer to tests for the instrument rating (airplane pilots’ backgrounds. review and evaluate.’’ The NTSB category) on October 1, 1991 and for the Two accidents following the acknowledged that while ‘‘a single commercial pilot certificate (single- enactment and implementation of PRIA notice of disapproval for a flight check, engine land airplane) on May 14, 2002, led the NTSB to make additional along with an otherwise successful and required additional training in three findings and recommendations record of performance, should not separate training events while a first regarding retention of pilot records; the adversely affect a hiring decision,’’ a officer at Colgan. sharing of information related to pilot history of ‘‘multiple notices of As a result of its investigation, the performance among operators; and disapproval for a flight check might be NTSB issued recommendation A–10– operators’ review of previous significant . . . and should be evaluated 019 to recommend that the FAA require performance records. On July 13, 2003, before a hiring decision is made.’’ all ‘‘part 121, 135, and 91K operators to Air Sunshine Incorporated flight 527 (d/ On February 12, 2009, Colgan Air, provide the training records requested b/a Tropical Aviation Services, Inc.) Inc. flight 3407 (d/b/a Continental in Safety Recommendation A–10–17 to ditched in the Atlantic Ocean about 7 Connection), crashed into a residence in hiring employers to fulfill their nautical miles west-northwest of Clarence Center, New York, about 5 requirement under PRIA.’’ 12 Safety Treasure Cay Airport (MYAT), The nautical miles northeast of the Buffalo Recommendation A–10–017 advises the Bahamas, after an in-flight failure of the Niagara International Airport, New FAA to require all ‘‘part 121, 135, and right engine. The flight was conducted York, resulting in the death of all 49 91K operators to document and retain under the operating rule of 14 CFR part passengers on board and one person on electronic and/or paper records of pilot 135, as a scheduled international, the ground. The flight occurred under training and checking events in passenger-commuter flight. Out of nine 14 CFR part 121. sufficient detail so that the carrier and The NTSB determined that ‘‘the total passengers, two passengers died its principal operations inspector can probable cause of this accident was the after evacuating the airplane and five fully assess a pilot’s entire training captain’s inappropriate response to 13 passengers sustained minor injuries. performance.’’ activation of the stick shaker, which led The pilot sustained minor injuries and In the Colgan Air 3407 final aircraft to an aerodynamic stall from which the the airplane sustained substantial accident report, the NTSB noted the airplane did not recover.’’ 9 Contributing damage. The NTSB determined that issuance of Safety Recommendation A– factors included: ‘‘(1) the flightcrew’s ‘‘the probable cause of the accident was 05–01 as a result of the Air Sunshine failure to monitor airspeed in relation to the in-flight failure of the right engine 527 accident. The NTSB indicated its the rising position of the low-speed cue, and the pilot’s failure to adequately (2) the flightcrew’s failure to adhere to 10 manage the airplane’s performance after Id. sterile cockpit procedures, (3) the 11 Id. captain’s failure to effectively manage 12 NTSB Safety Recommendation A–10–019 in 5 Clarifications to Pilot Records Improvement Act of 1996, H.R. Rep. 105–372 (Oct. 31, 1997), the flight, and (4) Colgan Air’s Letter from NTSB Chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman explained certain clarifying amendments made to inadequate procedures for airspeed to FAA Administrator J. Randolph Babbitt dated PRIA in Public Law 105–142, 111 Stat. 2650 (Dec. Feb. 23, 2010 at 26, available at https:// 5, 1997), and listed the following accidents as www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/recletters/A-10- 6 See NTSB Report AAR–04/03 (Adopted October evidence supporting the enactment of PRIA: 010-034.pdf. 13, 2004) at page 47, which can be obtained at 13 Continental Airlines flight 1713 (November 15, NTSB Safety Recommendation A–10–017 in http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Accident 1987); Trans-Colorado flight 2286 (January 19, Letter from NTSB Chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman Reports/Reports/AAR0403.pdf. 1988); AV Air flight 3378 (February 19, 1988); to FAA Administrator J. Randolph Babbitt dated 7 Aloha Island Air flight 1712 (October 28, 1989); See NTSB Report AAR–04/03 at page 43. Feb. 23, 2010 at 57, available at https:// Scenic Air flight 22 (April 22, 1992); Express II 8 Letter to Marion C. Blakey Re Safety www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/recletters/A-10- flight 5719 (December 1, 1993); and American Eagle Recommendation A–05–01 and –02 (Jan. 27, 2005), 010-034.pdf. By letter dated February 21, 2014, the flight 3379 (December 13, 1994). Each of these available at http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/ NTSB reported that ‘‘pending implementation of operators held a part 119 air carrier certificate and RecLetters/A05_01_02.pdf. the PRD, including guidance about when comments most of the flights occurred under 14 CFR part 135, 9 NTSB Report AAR–10/01 at 155 (Feb. 2, 2010), are needed in PRD entries, Safety Recommendation except Continental Airlines flight 1713, which was available at http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/ A–10–017 remains classified Open–Acceptable operated under 14 CFR part 121. AccidentReports/Reports/AAR1001.pdf. Response.’’

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31011

continued recommendation that airman stress response. The NTSB also noted individual to serve as a flight certification information concerning the FAA’s failure to implement the PRD crewmember in air carrier operations. previous notices of disapproval should as a contributing factor. PRIA requires a hiring air carrier to be included in an air carrier’s Consequently, the NTSB issued two obtain records from three sources assessment of the suitability of a pilot- new safety recommendations. utilizing standardized forms including: applicant. The NTSB also indicated that Recommendation A–20–34 states: (1) Current and previous air carriers or notices of disapproval should be Implement the pilot records database and operators that had employed the considered safety-related records that ensure that it includes all industry records individual as a pilot, (2) the FAA, and must be included in an air carrier’s for all training started by a pilot as part of (3) the National Driver Register (NDR). evaluation of a pilot’s career the employment process for any Title 14 The provisions of PRIA were self- progression. While recognizing that the Code of Federal Regulations Part 119 implementing and the FAA’s role was FAA had revised Advisory Circular (AC) certificate holder, air tour operator, fractional limited; therefore, there was no need for 120–68G: The Pilot Records ownership program, corporate flight the FAA to develop implementing department, or governmental entity regulations. The FAA issued AC120– Improvement Act of 1996 (AC120–68G), conducting public aircraft operations (June 21, 2016) to indicate that the regardless of the pilot’s employment status 68G, which provided guidance for air hiring employer may, at its discretion, and whether the training was completed. carriers, operators and pilots regarding request a record of an individual’s compliance with the PRIA statute. In Recommendation A–20–35 states: notices of disapproval for flight checks advance of this rulemaking, the FAA from the FAA,14 the NTSB advised that Ensure that industry records maintained in moved its PRIA records to an electronic a rulemaking would ensure that air the pilot records database are searchable by pilot record database, the first phase of carriers are required to obtain and a pilot’s certificate number to enable a hiring PRD.17 Use of the PRD for review of operator to obtain all background records for FAA records is voluntary under PRIA. evaluate notices of disapprovals for a pilot reported by all previous employers. pilot-applicants. Following the Colgan Air 3407 Following the Colgan Air 3407 On March 30, 2020, the FAA accident, the FAA issued a Call to accident, Congress enacted the PRD Act. responded to the legislative mandates Action on Airline Safety and Pilot The PRD Act required the FAA to and NTSB recommendations by Training. The FAA published an Airline establish an electronic pilot records publishing the PRD Notice of Proposed Safety and Pilot Training Action Plan 18 database and provided for the Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal that included a number of key subsequent sunset of PRIA. Congress Register.16 Consistent with NTSB initiatives including a focused review of has since enacted the FAA Extension, recommendation A–05–01, the FAA air carrier flight crewmember training, Safety, and Security Act of 2016 proposed to require all operators to qualification, and management (FESSA), which required the FAA to access and evaluate an individual’s practices. In addition, the FAA updated establish the electronic pilot records records in the PRD before making a AC 120–68E 19 on July 2, 2010, and database by April 30, 2017.15 hiring decision. These records would incorporated elements from the Plan. On February 23, 2019, Atlas Air Inc. include any notices of disapproval the In response to the PRD Act, the FAA (Atlas) flight 3591, a Boeing 767, was individual received during a practical Administrator chartered the PRD destroyed after it descended rapidly test attempt for a certificate or rating. Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) from an altitude of about 6,000 ft mean The proposed rule stated the FAA on February 3, 2011.20 The PRD ARC sea level (MSL) and crashed in Trinity would upload data processed in the submitted a final report to the Associate Bay, Texas, about 41 miles east- Certification Airmen Information Administrator for Aviation Safety on southeast of George Bush System (CAIS) on a nightly basis to July 29, 2011. A copy of the report is in Intercontinental/Houston Airport (IAH), ensure both air carriers and operators the public docket for this rulemaking.21 Houston, Texas, resulting in the death of have the most accurate and up-to-date The FAA also issued further the captain, first officer, and a information to make an informed hiring communications regarding pilot records. nonrevenue pilot riding in the jump decision. Second, consistent with A– The FAA published an Information for seat. Atlas operated the airplane as a 10–17 and A–10–19, the FAA proposed Operators (InFO) 22 on August 15, 2011 part 121 domestic cargo flight. to require air carriers and operators to (InFO 11014), advising all operators that The NTSB determined that the enter relevant information into the PRD conduct operations in accordance with probable cause of this accident was an in a standardized format. inappropriate response by the first Implementation of this rule is 17 The FAA was appropriated ‘‘under section officer as the pilot flying to an responsive to both new NTSB 106(k)(1) of the PRD Act and codified at U.S.C. inadvertent activation of the go-around 44703(i)(14), a total of $6,000,000 for fiscal years recommendations. Specifically, 2010 through 2013’’ in order to establish a pilot mode, which led to his spatial regarding Recommendation A–20–34, records database. disorientation and nose-down control the FAA only has authority to require 18 Fact Sheet—Update on the FAA’s Call to inputs that placed the airplane in a reporting of records by operators that Action to Enhance Airline Safety (Jan. 27, 2010), available at https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/ steep descent from which the crew did have actually employed the pilot; _ not recover. Contributing to the news story.cfm?newsId=11125. however, the PRD will apply to records 19 Advisory Circular—Pilot Records Improvement accident, according to the NTSB, were concerning training prior to the pilot Act of 1996 (July 2, 2010), available at https:// systemic deficiencies in the aviation beginning service as a pilot www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_ industry’s selection and performance crewmember. Circular/AC%20120-68E.pdf. measurement practices, which failed to 20 The PRD ARC charter is available at http:// _ address the first officer’s aptitude- B. History of PRIA and PRD www.faa.gov/regulations policies/rulemaking/ committees/documents/media/ related deficiencies and maladaptive Congress enacted PRIA to ensure that PRD.ARC.cht.20110203.pdf. air carriers adequately investigate each 21 The ARC report is available in the public 14 Advisory Circular—Pilot Records Improvement pilot’s employment background and docket for this rulemaking and is also available at _ Act of 1996 (June 21, 2016), available at https:// other information pertaining to pilot https://www.faa.gov/regulations policies/ www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_ rulemaking/committees/documents/index.cfm/ Circular/AC_120-68G.pdf. performance before allowing that document/information?documentID=312. 15 Public Law 114–190 section 2101 (July 15, 22 InFOs are documents the FAA issues that 2016). 16 85 FR 17660. contain information and recommendations.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 31012 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

parts 91, 121, 125, and 135 to retain any part 91 operators 27 and aviation employment history, but believed the records on pilots employed in those industry organizations, opposed the costs outweigh the benefits. This operations.23 The FAA published a proposed rule. Commenters stated that commenter indicated complying with second InFO on March 13, 2014 (InFO not all covered records should apply to the proposed rule would require hiring 14005), further reminding the regulated some types of operators, such as additional personnel. entities of their responsibility to retain corporate operators and operators Commenters who generally disagreed pilot records dating back to August 1, conducting public aircraft operations with the proposed rule stated the PRD 2005.24 The FAA also issued a policy (PAO). They asserted that requiring would not be useful, would impose an notice titled ‘‘Pilot Records Retention such operators to include all record unfair burden on affected operators or Responsibilities Related to the Airline types would cause undue burden and pilots or would be intrusive and violate Safety and Federal Aviation would offer limited value, as the career pilot privacy. Commenters also stated Administration Act of 2010.’’ The notice path from part 91 operations to that the PRD would be open to abuse directed FAA inspectors to verify that operations involving common carriage and false reporting by employers, or air carriers or operators have a system is less common. Commenters were also would penalize pilots unfairly who do in place to retain records that the statute concerned about the user fee, not train well or do not perform well in requires such entities to include in the particularly as it applied to small the culture of a particular airline. database.25 operators, and noted that they Others, including a flight department anticipated higher costs for leader, stated the provisions are The PRD Act directed the FAA to recordkeeping than the estimated costs unnecessary because airline and charter submit a statement to Congress by presented by the FAA. Commenters also organizations can change their internal February 2012, and at least once every requested a longer compliance period to hiring processes to assess the candidate three years thereafter, indicating transition from PRIA to PRD. without needing to leverage a completion of a periodic review of the Commenters expressed concern about standardized process for review of statutory requirements. The statement to pilots’ privacy and objected to the records. The FL Aviation Corp. and Congress must contain FAA inclusion of check pilot comments in another individual commented that the recommendations to change the records the PRD. Commenters further objected NPRM provided no data concerning required to be included in the database to the inclusion of historical records and accidents or incidents that justify the or explain why the FAA does not the method for record reporting. change to the PRD or the requirements recommend changes to the records for inclusion of additional records and A. General Support or Opposition referenced in Section 203. In its most recordkeeping. The Coalition of Airline recent report to Congress, in February 1. Summary of Comments Pilots Associations (CAPA) urged the 2018, the FAA indicated that it did not Most comments that generally agreed FAA to establish protocols to prevent recommend any changes until it with the proposed rule were submitted U.S. candidates from being placed at a considers public comments on the PRD by the Families of Continental Flight hiring disadvantage when competing for rulemaking proposal. The FAA expects 3407. These commenters supported the jobs among foreign applicants whose to provide the next report by February creation of the PRD on the grounds that training data may be unverifiable. 2021. it would prevent accidents such as crash Three commenters, including NBAA and CAPA, expressed concern that the IV. Comments Regarding General of Colgan Flight 3407. Most of these commenters stated the crash was largely proposed rule differs significantly from Issues, Applicability, Pilot Privacy, and the consensus recommendations of the the Transition From PRIA due to pilot error and that the PRD would have provided better review and 2011 PRD Aviation Rulemaking The Pilot Records Database NPRM scrutiny of pilot records, which could Committee (ARC). CAPA recommended published on March 30, 2020 and the have prevented the accident. the FAA reconsider the ARC’s comment period closed June 29, 2020. The other commenters that generally recommendations, in addition to reviewing the public comments. Approximately 800 comments were supported the proposed rule, including posted to the docket, many of which the NTSB, the Regional Airline 2. FAA Response Association (RAA), Small UAV were form letters submitted by National The FAA carefully reviewed all Coalition, and the National Air Disaster Business Aviation Association (NBAA) comments received in response to the Foundation, did so on the basis that members. NPRM and made several changes to the centralizing records in an electronic Generally, the Families of Continental rule to ensure that it achieves the safety database would create a broad source of Flight 3407 26 and others supported the goals of the FAA and fully implements records available in a standardized rule. Many commenters, particularly the statutory requirements set forth by format in one location. This Congress. As noted in the NPRM, centralization would limit the 23 _ _ industry, including part 91 operators, http://www.faa.gov/other visit/aviation possibility that operators would industry/airline_operators/airline_safety/info/all_ currently is subject to the requirements overlook records, provide a seamless infos/media/2011/InFO11014.pdf. of PRIA. Although the implementation 24 process of reviewing pilot records, aid Pilot Records Database—Status Update http:// of the PRD changes the nature of www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviation_industry/airline_ operators in hiring the highest quality _ _ industry participation in record-sharing, operators/airline safety/info/all infos/media/ 2014/ pilots, and improve transparency while InFO14005.pdf. issues such as pilot privacy, abuse, false still protecting the privacy of pilots’ 25 National policy notice N8900.279, ‘‘Pilot reporting, and penalization of pilots records. One individual stated the Records Retention Responsibilities Related to the who do not perform well exist under Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration proposed rule has some positive aspects PRIA, as well. In enacting the PRD Act, Act of 2010,’’ is available at http://www.faa.gov/ for part 135 operators, especially in _ Congress directed the FAA to include documentLibrary/media/Notice/N 8900.279.pdf. obtaining timely PRIA documents about See also 49 U.S.C. 44703(i)(4)(B)(ii)(II). safeguards in the PRD for pilot privacy a prospective crewmember’s 26 The Families of Continental Flight 3407 is an and related concerns. The FAA organization of family members and close friends of the victims of Continental Flight 3407 which 27 The term ‘‘part 91 operators’’ refers to discussed these proposed safeguards in crashed on February 12, 2009. This rule refers to operations that occur solely under the regulatory the NPRM and adopts them, as that event as Colgan Air 3407. requirements contained in 14 CFR part 91. appropriate, in this final rule.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31013

The FAA carefully considered the corporate flight departments, which records, trying to take this snapshot in input provided by the ARC. The FAA ultimately would benefit operators but time of what might be a gateway job has already adopted many of its would not increase the safety of could lead to future loopholes. recommendations in the design and corporate flight department operations. NBAA stated that business aviation implementation of the PRD. While the Several commenters asserted that represents a diverse group of aircraft FAA does not currently plan to Congress did not intend to impose these operators ranging from single-pilot, implement all recommendations as requirements on corporate flight owner-operated single aircraft to multi- described in the report, the ARC departments and the proposal was FAA aircraft operators with a mix of fixed- assisted the FAA in formulating the overreach. Many commenters noted that wing and rotor-wing aircraft. Therefore, design of the PRD. This design is the their corporate flight departments are according to NBAA, a single, codified result of careful consideration of the small operations; as a result, some definition will not adequately address requirements, as outlined in the statute, suggested they would need to add staff the diversity of the industry. NBAA the FAA’s operational capabilities, and and modify their information recommended the FAA remove any the effects on and benefits to industry. technology systems to comply with the provisions that impose additional The FAA is mindful of all comments proposed requirements. recordkeeping requirements that would concerning costs of compliance with Several commenters objected to the apply to corporate flight departments this rule. The Regulatory Impact definition of ‘‘corporate flight and § 91.147 operators, as recommended Assessment (RIA), which is available in departments’’ in the NPRM, arguing that by the ARC. NBAA also objected to the the docket for this rulemaking, accounts the FAA is creating a new category of FAA basing the definition of corporate for all costs incurred by entities. Section operator, and that this is inconsistent flight departments on the number of VI.A of this rule also includes a with established categories of operations aircraft a department operates, as doing discussion of the costs. under parts 91, 121, and 135. GAMA, so could deter operators from NBAA and its form letter campaign, B. Applicability of the Rule purchasing aircraft. AOPA, and the PlaneSense form letter NBAA urged the FAA to limit the As discussed further in Section campaign asserted that no basis exists in scope of the proposed rule to operators V.A.1., under the NPRM, part 111 the PRD Act to establish such a with the most significant public interest, applies to operators and would require definition and that it would add such as those that conduct common them to report information to the FAA complexity and confusion. GAMA noted carriage, and to facilitate the continued for inclusion in the PRD. Specifically, the proposed definition would require use of PRIA feedback for part 91 the FAA proposed to include pilot aircraft operators to first determine their operators. NBAA noted its member records from certain operations status based on the definition and then survey data suggests that, on average, occurring under part 91, such as public add the new burden and cost of part 91 operators within FAA’s aircraft operations, air tour operators compiling, maintaining, and reporting proposed definition of a corporate flight operating in accordance with § 91.147, pilot records. GAMA expressed concern department receive less than one PRIA and corporate flight departments. that the proposed rule would expose request every two-and-a-half years. The FAA received comments related operators to the possibility of NBAA and other commenters stated to the applicability of the proposed rule enforcement action in the event the that part 91 business operators— from the General Aviation FAA disagrees with an operator’s particularly those the FAA proposed to Manufacturers Association (GAMA), the interpretation of the rule and the include in part 111—have excellent Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association operator’s subsequent actions. safety records, and the FAA’s proposal (AOPA), NBAA, the U.S. Marshals GAMA, AOPA, and individual and regulatory evaluation fail to Service Justice Prisoner and Alien commenters asserted that the FAA articulate any quantifiable safety value Transportation System (JPATS), NASA’s assumes erroneously that part 91 for subjecting part 91 operators to the Aircraft Management Division, corporate aviation commonly serves as requirements of the proposed rule. PlaneSense, Inc., Dassault Aviation, and a ‘‘pipeline’’ or ‘‘gateway’’ to NBAA further stated that NBAA several individual commenters, employment with part 121 and part 135 members, such as certificate holders approximately 500 of whom were using operators. GAMA stated that studies operating under part 135, are already a form letter provided by NBAA. Many show corporate flight departments are subject to PRIA requirements and report commenters and the majority of not gateway employers like flight that PRIA results play a greater role in individuals opposed applying the schools with bridge agreements, validating existing pilot hiring decisions proposed requirements to part 91 operators under parts 91 subpart K and than in considering whom to hire. operators. Some commenters, including 135, and the U.S. military. Instead, NBAA also pointed out that including NASA’s Aircraft Management Division GAMA stated that the most common certain part 91 operators exceeds the and JPATS, opposed the application of path to part 121 air carrier employment NTSB’s recommendation, which only the proposed rule to PAO. starts at a flight school. GAMA cites the need for parts 121 and 135 identified the primary sources of airline operators to share pilot information. 1. Comments Received on the Inclusion hiring as part 141 and part 61 flight NBAA recommended the FAA remove and Definition of Corporate Flight schools with bridge agreements, parts part 91 operators from the proposed Departments and Other Part 91 135 and part 91(k) operators, and the rule, on the view that records provided Operators U.S. military.28 CAPA stated those by part 91 operators would provide GAMA, NTSB, NBAA, AOPA, Koch gateway jobs are ever-changing and that minimal safety benefit to part 121 and Industries, operators, and individual although it is not unreasonable to part 135 operators in their hiring commenters addressed the proposal to require a certificate holder to keep pilot require all corporate flight departments process. An individual asserted that while to enter data on pilot performance into 28 James Higgins, et al., ‘‘An Investigation of the InFO 11014 29 refers to part 91, 121 and the PRD. Many of these commenters United States Pilot Labor Supply,’’ University of North Dakota (2013); and Michael McGee, ‘‘Air indicated that the proposal would Transport Pilot Supply and Demand—Current State 29 InFO 11014, described in Section III.B., impose unreasonably burdensome and Effects of Recent Legislation,’’ The RAND published on August 11, 2015 and provided recordkeeping requirements on Corporation (2015). Continued

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 31014 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

135 records, the regulations cited are for OEM production or experimental flight departments should be treated the same, parts 121, 125, and 135 only. The departments because they do not unless the department maintains an commenter stated no regulation requires operate ‘‘a fleet of two or more standard FAA certificate, such as an air carrier or part 91 operators to maintain records airworthiness airplanes.’’ commercial operating certificate. NASA other than to show proficiency. The In the preamble to the proposed rule, opposed placing pilot record reporting commenter further stated the InFO does the FAA asked commenters to respond requirements on Federal Government not address part 91 record retention. to three questions regarding corporate PAO. Individual commenters also Other commenters stated that the flight departments’ safety practices.30 recommended the FAA exempt PAO FAA does not have statutory authority GAMA and four individual commenters from the proposed rule. One such to impose the proposed recordkeeping provided responses. These commenters commenter stated the proposed rule requirements on part 91 operators. generally agreed it would not be does not consider that pilots from the PlaneSense and the commenters that beneficial to require corporate flight Department of Justice (FBI, DEA, U.S. submitted comments as part of the departments operating a single aircraft Marshals) and the Department of PlaneSense form letter campaign (the to report to the PRD because, in the case Homeland Security (Air and Marine PlaneSense commenters) asserted that of owners operating their own aircraft, Operations, United States Coast Guard) the PRD Act identifies air carriers and they would be reporting on themselves. can be targeted for retaliation for ‘‘other persons’’ as having obligations GAMA asserted the Agency failed to performing their duties. under the Act, but specifically identifies ‘‘adequately address the scope of In contrast to the comments discussed the applicable pilot records to which the operations conducted under part 91, above, NTSB and an individual PRD Act applies as those kept pursuant especially by owner-operators who use commenter expressed support for the to part 121, part 125, or part 135. Citing their aircraft for a variety of purposes inclusion of part 91 operators in the 49 U.S.C. 44703(h) and 44703(i), these and will likely never employ pilots.’’ An proposed rule. The individual commenters argued that the PRD Act individual commenter noted it would be commenter said that, as an employer of does not include pilot records of impossible for corporate flight pilots for part 135 operations, it finds operators whose flights are operated departments operating a single aircraft the current process to be flawed and under part 91 or subpart k of part 91. to comply with the proposed time-consuming with respect to The PlaneSense commenters also requirements because every private obtaining records from part 91 contended that no statutory authority aircraft owner would have to report on operators. The NTSB agreed that part 91 exists in either section 44703(h) or every pilot they employ or contract with operators often serve as ‘‘gateway 44703(i) that imposes an obligation on regardless of how short the term. operators’’ for air carrier pilots. any operator conducting operations Another individual asked how the FAA 2. FAA Response under part 91. They asserted that the would know all corporate flight The FAA carefully evaluated all FAA is overstepping its authority by departments are reporting to the PRD, as comments received regarding the interpreting the definition of ‘‘person’’ required. applicability of each proposed in the PRD Act to include In response to questions about the requirement. Upon consideration, the noncommercial operators that the records corporate flight departments FAA determined that in light of the statute does not identify specifically. maintain, GAMA indicated many large information and data provided by These commenters urged the FAA to corporate flight departments maintain commenters, some requirements of the remove references to fractional records documenting pilot training, proposed rule were overly burdensome operators and corporate flight evaluation, performance, disciplinary departments from the rule. for certain types of operators. This rule actions, or release from employment or reduces the reporting burden for certain An air tour operator opined that the other professional disqualification. proposal would burden part 91 operators conducting operations GAMA also noted that pilots of many without a part 119 certificate, in that operators far beyond the intent of corporate flight departments have Congress by requiring frequent reporting they are not required to report specific responsibilities in addition to operating types of records unless and until by that group. Several commenters aircraft, so employment records may noted that corporate flight departments requested. Such operators include also contain much information that is public aircraft operations, air tour vary widely in the volume and nature of not relevant to performance as a pilot records retained. GAMA and other operations, and corporate flight and the pilot-related data is likely to departments, referred to in this section commenters suggested that the proposal exist in a form that differs from the would discourage corporate flight as the ‘‘PAC’’ group. This approach record elements the PRD intends to addresses many of the issues raised by departments from creating and retaining include. records not otherwise mandated by commenters with respect to the burden JPATS, NASA’s Aircraft Management on part 91 operators. Under the final regulation and may also discourage Division, and individuals opposed the participation in voluntary safety rule, a reviewing entity will have access application of the proposed rule to PAO. to a pilot’s records as needed, but that programs and optional formal training. Noting that the proposed rule would not One individual suggested that while the reporting requirement for the PAC apply to ‘‘[a]ny branch of the United group scales according to the volume of Congress and the FAA included States Armed Forces, National Guard, or indemnity clauses, they are not robust requests. reserve component of the Armed Commenters stated that many pilots enough to prevent civil defamation Forces,’’ JPATS said that Federal flight actions. employed by PAC operators do not switch employers often and NBAA Dassault Aviation asked the FAA to 30 85 FR at 17671 (requesting answers to whether confirm that the proposed requirements it would be beneficial to require corporate flight noted that some operators only receive for corporate flight departments are not departments operating a single aircraft to report to a single PRIA request every two-and-a- applicable to original equipment PRD; whether such flight departments already half years. Accordingly, the FAA maintain substantive records that include certain determined the most effective way to manufacturer (OEM) demonstration and types of information; and whether the proposed rule would create a disincentive for such ensure review of a pilot’s records by a information about future PRD compliance to air departments to create and retain records not already potential employer, while reducing carriers and operators. required). extraneous records loaded by the PAC

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31015

group, is to require that group to enter of these types of operations. These supported gathering data from part 133 only records that may be of particular operators currently respond to requests and part 137 operations, while the concern to a hiring employer. Section under PRIA. Excluding these operators National Agricultural Aviation V.C.4 of this rule contains a detailed from the applicability of the PRD Association (NAAA) agreed with FAA’s discussion of this new method of entirely would not serve the FAA’s decision not to require reporting from reporting. This rule requires these PAC safety mission; overall, this final rule part 137 agricultural operators. NAAA operators to enter certain records requires an appropriate level of stated that part 137 operators are not contemporaneous with the occurrence engagement from certain part 91 ‘‘gateway operators’’ for air carriers. of a particular event or receipt of a operators. Commenters also responded to the record; this framework will reduce risk The FAA also received many FAA’s request for comment regarding associated with a pilot error or omission comments concerning the proposed whether data from excluded entities with respect to that pilot’s employment definition of corporate flight would provide information relevant to history. Section V.D.3 provides a department. The FAA proposed to the evaluation of a pilot candidate for description of this requirement. This define corporate flight departments as employment. Airlines for America rule will require the PAC operators to operators conducting operations under (A4A) stated it does not believe data report all other records unless and until part 91 with two or more standard from excluded entities would provide requested, with the exception of an air airworthiness airplanes that require a information relevant to the evaluation of tour operator’s drug and alcohol testing type rating under § 61.31(a), in a pilot candidate seeking employment. records.31 furtherance of, or incidental to, a A4A recommended that the FAA focus The FAA is mindful of the comments business, or operators holding a letter of on ensuring the PRD is successful by recommending exclusion of public deviation authority under § 125.3. This providing technical requirements and aircraft operations from the PRD. The rule removes the proposed definition engaging with regulated entities before FAA, however, does not have discretion from § 111.10 but instead includes the expanding the PRD to other entities. to completely exclude this group from criteria in the applicability section of Ameristar Air Cargo, Inc. (Ameristar) the PRD requirements. The PRD Act the rule. The criteria are also amended asserted it would be unlikely that PRIA requires the inclusion of records from to include rotorcraft, which is described requests will be honored by foreign ‘‘other person[s] [. . .] that ha[ve] in detail in Section V.A.1. The FAA carriers without a treaty or bilateral employed an individual as a pilot of a selected two aircraft because operators agreement with ICAO member civil or public aircraft.’’ 32 The FAA utilizing multiple aircraft tend to have countries. notes that the PRD Act specifically more pilots, as described in the NPRM. The Small UAV Coalition commented excludes records from the branches of Additionally, this rule will not require that the proposed rule is another the ‘‘Armed Forces, the National Guard, single-aircraft corporate flight regulation that applies to UAS air or a reserve component of the Armed departments conducting operations carriers only because a more suitable Forces,’’ 33 which would be public exclusively under part 91 to upload regulatory scheme addressing such aircraft operations under 49 U.S.C. records to the PRD because, as operations does not exist. The Coalition 40102. The exclusion of records from mentioned by commenters, such stated that a set of comprehensive laws this narrow group of public aircraft operators often include only the single and regulations specific to UAS operators, combined with the statutory pilot conducting operations on behalf of operations would help resolve the language generally including the operator, who may be the same regulatory compliance burden that UAS individuals who are employed as pilots person. Setting the threshold at multiple operators face when seeking to conduct of public aircraft, indicates that the aircraft better tailors this rule to apply commercial business under existing statute includes other (non-statutorily to entities that may have applicable regulatory schemes. The Coalition did excluded) entities that conduct public records. not suggest that the overarching safety aircraft operations. In response to comments regarding purposes of the PRD are inapplicable to Permitting the PAC group to report whether an OEM’s operations fall commercial UAS operations, but stated certain records only upon request is within the definition of a corporate that commercial UAS operations merit a consistent with the FAA’s framework flight department, the FAA reiterates realistic and tailored approach to record for risk-based decision-making. that if the operations fall into the retention and review that is an integral Operators under part 119 are subject to applicability criteria as adopted, part part of a comprehensive rule on UAS air robust requirements, concomitant with 111 would apply to that entity. Each carriers. The Coalition urged the FAA to assuring the safety of the traveling manufacturer should remain aware of begin rulemaking to update air carrier public; in contrast, operators in the PAC the applicability criteria and assess operating rules for UAS air carriers. group conduct operations that are whether it meets the criteria for subject to less FAA oversight and applicability. 4. FAA Response generally present a lower level of risk, The plain language of the statute only due to reduced volume and frequency. 3. Comments Regarding Other Types of Operators permits the FAA to require employers of The FAA anticipates a modest number pilots to report records. The Armed of pilots will transition from the PAC Commenters also provided input Forces are excluded by the plain group to reviewing entities. Given the concerning other types of entities, such language of the statute.34 Similarly, considerations noted above, this method as pilot schools and operators that are training centers subject to 14 CFR part of reporting-upon-request available for excluded from the applicability of part 141 or part 142 training centers would PAC entities is consistent with the PRD 119. Several commenters, including not be able to report records regarding Act and is scalable with the level of risk Koch Industries, CAE, and CAPA, asked pilots who received training at those why part 141 and part 142 schools are centers, as individuals employed as 31 Operators subject to 14 CFR part 120 must enter not required to report, and suggested all drug and alcohol records into the database in flight instructors to provide flight accordance with the timelines and requirements that those entities should provide data included in § 111.220. instead of operators. 34 49 U.S.C. 44703(h)(1)(B) (excluding, among 32 49 U.S.C. 44703(i)(2)(B) (emphasis added). CAPA also stated that applicability other things, records from ‘‘a branch of the United 33 Id. should extend to the U.S. military. RAA States Armed Forces’’).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 31016 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

training are not employed for purposes Organizations to secure information that the FAA should not include records of operating an aircraft. Therefore, the contained in the PRD. subsequently overturned. The FAA did not propose to require commenter said that expungement and 1. Summary of Comments compliance with part 111 by part 61 or ‘‘overturned’’ as used in the PRD Act part 141 pilot schools or part 142 Approximately 24 commenters, could mean the same thing, and that training centers with part 111. The FAA including A4A, the Cargo Airline adding definitions of these terms would also considered comments regarding the Association (CAA), NBAA, and provide some clarity as to the treatment applicability of part 111 to operators Cummins, Inc., expressed concerns of the records. Ameristar commented conducting operations under part 133 related to privacy issues. A4A that these records should not be (Rotorcraft External-Load Operations) or commented that notice of a pilot’s death maintained nor made available upon part 137 (Agricultural Aircraft should be supported by a certified copy PRD request. Operations). This final rule maintains of a death notice from any source, not The PlaneSense commenters stated the proposed exclusion of those just from next of kin, in order to avoid they generally agreed with a dissent to operations, for the reasons discussed in overburdening the database with the PRD ARC recommendation, which the NPRM. Primarily, the FAA extraneous information and increasing said that the FAA should remove and determined that those operators would the risk of privacy issues. Commenters store, for an undefined period of time, not be likely to generate records that remarked on the importance of keeping deceased pilots’ records from the PRD would be useful to a reviewing entity pilot records confidential and only for security purposes or assistance with and that pilots employed by those maintaining sensitive pilot information an investigation. operators will generally be employed by related to termination of employment or CAPA disagreed with the requirement another type of operator that would be unsatisfactory completion of airman for retention of pilot records for the life a reporting entity before attempting to flight checks, and expressed concern of the pilot. The commenter stated that find employment in service of a about the data security. Commenters no data supports that information from reviewing entity like an air carrier. recommended that pilots have control an event that may have occurred years As discussed in the NPRM and over who can access their records and ago has any bearing upon a pilot’s adopted in this final rule, the PRD Act asked whether pilots will have an current or future performance. The FL is not applicable to foreign operators. opportunity to direct how the PRD will Aviation Corp. commented that a Furthermore, the FAA does not have the share their information. request for a lifetime of records is itself technical capacity to accommodate Commenters opposed the PRD on onerous and far-reaching and could reporting from non-U.S. operators. The privacy grounds, stating that these pilots cause spillover by forcing the purchase FAA does not expect such entities to never signed up to have this information or update of additional programs to include any records in the PRD; shared. Several commenters opposed retain additional data. however, reviewing entities are free to including non-performance and non- An individual commenter expressed seek out information from any other aviation related disciplinary records. concern about ‘‘the code quality of the previous employer for whom the pilot Cummins Inc. also asked who inside the page where people register to use the worked in addition to accessing the FAA would have access to the database Pilot Records Database,’’ and stated the pilot’s PRD record. and who outside the FAA would have DOT sign-up pages for MyAccess should As explained in the NPRM, the PRD access to the database and non- not be used because of poor quality and Act requires all operators to request and anonymized data. NBAA commented security concerns. This commenter also review records prior to allowing an that the information contained in the stated that the system should undergo a individual to begin service as a pilot. As PRD should only be available to third party review. a result, the Act’s requirements apply to qualifying employers for the purpose of A4A recommended the FAA clarify pilots of UAS when those UAS are used evaluating a pilot-applicant. that information in the PRD may be in air carrier operations. This The A4A and CAA called for the FAA shared with NTSB officials when rulemaking is limited to addressing the to issue a Privacy Impact Assessment investigating an accident or incident; statutory mandate of the PRD Act; as a (PIA) 35 related to the PRD. The however, all other protection provided result, comments urging the FAA to commenters stated a PIA is needed to in the NPRM should continue to initiate separate rulemakings are outside address security and privacy risks of the apply.36 the scope of this rulemaking. PRD, given that the PRD will collect, 2. FAA Response C. Pilot Privacy access, use, and permit dissemination to prospective employers of pilot records. The FAA reiterates that the pilot is The PRD Act requires the FAA to the only person with control over which promulgate regulations to protect and These commenters requested the FAA address issues such as the time the FAA external entities view that pilot’s secure the personal privacy of any records in the PRD. A pilot must individual whose records are accessed expects for it to approve access to users, the training required of users, and provide specific, time-limited consent to in the new electronic database; to a reviewing entity before that entity is protect and secure the confidentiality of applicable parameters that will ensure privacy. permitted to view a pilot’s records. A those records; and to prevent further reviewing entity can only query the PRD dissemination of those records once The FAA also received comments on keeping records for the life of the pilot. for records of pilots who have accessed by an operator. specifically granted consent to that In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to Ameristar commented that if the FAA operator. After the pilot grants consent mitigate risks to privacy by adopting determines that any record should be for access to the records, the pilot must strict privacy standards and establishing expunged, the Agency should not also provide the reviewing entity with limits on access to the contents of the maintain that record and referenced 49 the pilot’s name and pilot certificate PRD. Specifically, the FAA will adhere U.S.C. 44703(i)(2)(A)(iii), which states number before the entity can review the to National Institute of Standards and 35 A PIA describes a process used to evaluate the Technology (NIST) Special Publication collection of personal data in information systems. 36 The NPRM proposed to exclude records 800.53 Security and Privacy Controls for The objective of a PIA is to determine if collected contained in the PRD from FOIA in accordance Federal Information Systems and personal information data is necessary and relevant. with the PRD Act, subject to certain exceptions.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31017

records. The FAA is obligated to ensure appropriate, as long as it continues to be submitted only by next of kin. Upon that only information that is relevant to the record owner. further consideration, the information a hiring employer’s review of a potential The PRD administrator will have the required to be submitted is sufficient to employee is housed in the system. ability to view a pilot’s records within ensure authenticity of the Limiting the data elements available to the PRD for the limited purpose of documentation and there is no safety or hiring employers is critical because the supporting a pilot’s request to release security concern that warrants limiting PRD Act requires the FAA to ensure those records to a reviewing entity. This who is permitted to submit such pilot privacy is protected. process is only used if the pilot cannot information. Additionally, the pilot can withdraw access the PRD system and specifically With respect to the comment consent at any time for PRD Airman requests the FAA release a PAR to a concerning the design code of Records (PARs). Records associated reviewing entity. This will occur when MyAccess, the FAA protects personal with a pilot are only released to an the pilot submits a completed and identifiable information (PII) with operator (a reviewing entity) after the signed FAA Form 8060–14 to the FAA reasonable security safeguards against pilot has created a PAR and consented for processing. loss or unauthorized access, destruction, to release of that specific PAR to that Although the PRD administrator can usage, modification, or disclosure. specific operator. When a pilot provides view the records in the PRD associated These safeguards incorporate standards consent in these cases, the PAR is only with a pilot, the FAA does not access and practices required for federal available for a limited period of time, as this information for any other purpose information systems under the Federal selected by the pilot. Each PAR is a than to support a pilot’s request to Information Security Management Act ‘‘snapshot’’ of the records as they review that pilot’s own information, (FISMA) and are detailed in the Federal 37 existed at that moment when the PAR made via FAA Form 8060–14, and for Information Processing Standards (FIPS) is generated and will not change even if other administrative purposes. With Publication 200, Minimum Security the records in the original data source limited exception, the FAA will not be Requirements for Federal Information change. This ensures that the pilot reviewing records in the PRD to search and Information Systems, and NIST knows exactly what is being displayed for instances of non-compliance with Special Publication 800–53. Detailed to the reviewing entity. When new FAA regulations. The only circumstance information regarding the steps taken to records are added to the PRD and the in which the FAA would use records in safeguard information for MyAccess is the PRD in an FAA enforcement action available in the Privacy Impact pilot wants the PAR to encompass those 39 records, the pilot must grant an updated would be in cases involving suspected Assessment for MyAccess. The FAA consent to release the updated PAR, non-compliance with Part 111. Records will publish an updated PIA for the PRD which will then replace the previous contained in the PRD could be used to in the docket for this rulemaking, as PAR. For this reason, while PARs can be prove instances of non-compliance with referenced in Section VI.H., Privacy Analysis. available for up to 60 days, reviewing the PRD reporting requirements or the entities may prefer that a PAR be absence of records could be an indicator D. Transition From PRIA to PRD of non-compliance. In any event, the released to them more recently to ensure The FAA proposed a transition the PAR reflects the most recent statutory exclusion of these records from release in response to a Freedom timeline from PRIA to PRD. The FAA information available. In addition to requested comments on whether the PARs only being available for a limited of Information Act request applies, with the exceptions listed in the PRD Act. transition period should be shortened or time period, the pilot can also revoke extended and whether it would be access to a PAR at any time. The FAA is permitted to release records to NTSB officials when investigating an helpful for the FAA to maintain a Reviewing entities that wish to review 38 publicly available list of all operators a PAR must also have the pilot’s name accident or incident. The PRD Act requires the FAA to that are fully compliant with the PRD and certificate number to retrieve the maintain records in the PRD for the life requirements during the transition PAR. Even if a pilot has granted consent of the pilot and does not provide the period. to the PAR, an operator will not be able FAA with discretion to expunge records to search for all available PARs without 1. Summary of Comments outside of that timeframe. The FAA having the name and certificate number Writing jointly, the Families of acknowledges that there is no research related to the PAR for which the entity Continental Flight 3407 stated that the indicating that maintaining records for is searching. The pilot will likely crash of that flight underscores the the lifetime of a pilot imbues greater provide the pilot’s name and certificate criticality and urgency of finalizing the safety benefits than a more time-limited number to the hiring operator as part of rule. The families called on the FAA, lookback such as what was required the vetting process. If the operator the U.S. Department of Transportation, under PRIA. Expunction of a record is attempts to search for a PAR, but the and the Office of Management and not the same as a record being pilot has not yet granted consent to view Budget to finalize the rule as overturned. For enforcement records, an the PAR, the PRD will report that no expediently as possible, to ensure every action under appeal subsequently might PARs were found for that pilot. operator has access to the most change the outcome of the initial complete information possible in hiring Other than when a PAR has been enforcement action. This could result in created and specific consent has been pilots. The families also noted that the enforcement record being nearly a decade has passed since provided to a reviewing entity to view overturned and subsequently expunged. that PAR, records within the PRD are Congress required the PRD in August Expunction also would occur when a 2010. They further compared the only accessible to the record owner. As pilot reaches 99 years of age or upon the previously described, the record owner current economic challenges the air FAA receiving a notification of death. carrier industry faces to challenges in is normally the same entity which The FAA agrees with A4A that a created the record; however, ownership notification of death need not be can change in some circumstances. An 39 U.S. Department of Transportation Privacy Impact Assessment, May 31, 2017, https:// operator that has entered records into 37 A copy of FAA Form 8060–14 has been placed www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/ the PRD can always view, edit, or in the docket. resources/individuals/privacy/282206/faa- remove those records later, as 38 49 U.S.C. 44703(k). myaccess-pia-05312017.pdf.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 31018 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

the decade after September 11, 2001, helpful information regarding the consistency and to clarify which pilots which they state led to growth of transition upon identification of are subject to the applicability of the regional airlines and cost-cutting responsible persons by each operator PRD. The proposed text captured which measures that contributed to the subject to this rule. certificates a pilot would typically hold preventable tragedy of Flight 3407. The in order to be subject to the PRD, but V. Section-by-Section Discussion of group called on government and did not note that only pilots who are industry stakeholders to be cognizant of Regulatory Text employed by or seeking employment this history to ensure these mistakes are This section provides an explanation with an entity subject to the not repeated. of substantive changes adopted in this applicability of this part would need The Regional Airline Association final rule, as well as summaries of access to the database. The final rule (RAA) and Atlas Air commented that, provision-specific comments and FAA removes the reference to the specific because it is difficult to predict the responses. It should be noted that there certificates pilots hold, and instead amount of time required for the transfer are non-substantive revisions made includes a requirement that would of data, the FAA might need to extend throughout the regulatory text, such as apply to any pilot working for a the transition period. The RAA section number changes or edits made reporting entity or seeking employment recommended that during the transition for clarity and consistency. with a reviewing entity. period the FAA maintain a publicly In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to The FAA also moved the applicability available list of carriers and other include subpart E to facilitate the criteria for persons whom the FAA operators that are fully compliant with transition from PRIA to PRD. However, defined in the NPRM as ‘‘corporate the PRD ahead of schedule so that the FAA did not adopt a regulatory flight departments’’ (referenced as such prospective employers can query the requirement for continued compliance in this preamble) into § 111.1(b)(4). The PRD directly. Atlas Air and A4A with PRIA in this rule. Because PRIA FAA amends the criteria for a corporate recommended similarly the FAA re- continues to be self-implementing in flight department to include not only evaluate the sunset of PRIA statute until September 9, 2024, part 111 those who operate two or more type requirements at the end of the transition does not need to include a regulatory rated airplanes but also those who period and extend it if not all affected requirement for continued compliance operate two or more turbine-powered carriers are in compliance with the PRD with PRIA. The FAA provides updated rotorcraft, or any combination of two or historical records requirement. Atlas Air guidance in AC 120–68J with further more of those aircraft. By adding highlighted that the uncertainties of the information about continued turbine-powered rotorcraft to this coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID–19) compliance with PRIA as related to PRD criteria, this rule applies to operators public health emergency may impact compliance. The FAA includes sunset that operate more than one complex carrier compliance. A4A also of PRIA in subpart A and requirements aircraft under part 91. After reviewing recommended extensive industry for reporting historical records in comments on corporate flight participation in a test pilot program. subpart C. departments, as described in Section IV.B., the FAA determined the 2. FAA Response A. Subpart A—General definition proposed in the NPRM The FAA acknowledges the wide 1. Applicability—Section 111.1 inadvertently excluded turbine-powered range of comments received regarding rotorcraft operators. These turbine- the timing of the implementation of the The FAA proposed that part 111 powered rotorcraft operators generally PRD and the transition period between would generally be applicable to part utilize advanced aircraft under part 91; PRD and PRIA. The FAA agrees that 119 certificate holders, fractional thus, their contributions to the PRD are expeditious implementation of the PRD ownership programs, persons as meaningful for safety as those is a top priority, but understands the authorized to conduct air tour operating type-rated airplanes. potential technical challenges that could operations in accordance with § 91.147, The FAA also adds applicability occur during the course of the persons operating a corporate flight criteria for PAO, which references the transition. After consideration of department, governmental entities statutory definition and criteria for PAO comments on this topic, the FAA made conducting public aircraft operations under 49 U.S.C. 40102 and 40125, but changes to the compliance dates and (PAO), as well as pilots with part 107 does not include operations conducted added interim compliance markers to remote pilot certificates operating a by any branch of the United States facilitate a smooth transition. These UAS for compensation or hire. Armed Forces, National Guard, or changes are discussed further in Substantively, the FAA adopts § 111.1 reserve component of the Armed Forces. Sections V.A.2 and V.E. as proposed. After reviewing comments This applicability provision aligns The interim compliance dates are for received on the applicability of the rule, directly with the PRD Act. submission of the responsible person discussed extensively in Section IV.B., The FAA also adopts regulatory text application, review of FAA records, the FAA acknowledges that pilots to provide criteria for when a trustee in review of industry records, reporting employed by the operators mentioned bankruptcy must comply with the new records, and reporting historical previously transition much less requirements of part 111, proposed records prior to the sunset of PRIA. This frequently than originally anticipated to originally in its own section in the rule also provides the opportunity for employment with reviewing entities. NPRM. The FAA proposed that any certain operators to request a deviation This revised method of reporting is operator subject to the applicability of in the event of unforeseen difficulties discussed in greater detail in Section part 111 that files a petition for with the transfer of historical records. V.C.4. Given that change, although the bankruptcy would still be required to The PRD will also provide information previously-mentioned entities are still report records to the PRD. The FAA regarding which employers have fully subject to part 111, the burden imposed proposed that the trustee appointed by completed historical record upload for a is proportionate to the level of risk the bankruptcy court may act as the particular pilot in order to eliminate any mitigation necessary to fulfill the intent responsible person for reporting those duplicative reporting during the of the PRD Act. records to the PRD. This section is transition period. The FAA intends to The FAA amends the regulatory text adopted as proposed with non- collaborate with industry by providing proposed originally in § 111.1 for substantive edits, one of which notes

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31019

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 31020 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31021

In response to comments asking for related to a pilot’s performance if that evaluated all comments regarding clarification of training records employer believes the event is perceived lack of clarity or pertaining to pilot performance, the fundamentally related to maintaining inconsistency in phraseology used and FAA publishes an Advisory Circular, safe aircraft operations, which includes made updates to the final rule to convey AC120–68J 40 with this rule that effective crew resource management. clearly the requirements of each section. includes specific lists of events which Overall, because good judgment by the The FAA determined that prescriptive the FAA expects to be entered into the pilot is a critical part of safe aircraft definitions of ‘‘good faith exception’’ PRD based on the training program for operation, pilot performance could and ‘‘trustee in bankruptcy’’ were not a particular pilot. The FAA intends that include events other than those strictly necessary, because the underlying if a record exists for the pilot as related to a pilot’s level of skill in regulations concerning these terms described at § 111.225 and as further operating an aircraft. describe them adequately in context of described in the AC, and the record is The FAA removed the definitions of the applicable requirements. This rule retained by the reporting entity, then it ‘‘air carrier,’’ ‘‘other operator,’’ and also contains edits throughout part 111 must be entered into the PRD. Each ‘‘participating operator’’ from this final to maximize regulatory clarity, which record type that an operator will report rule because those definitions were alleviates the need include the other is described by the event that prompts duplicative of applicability definitions that commenters requested. the reporting requirement. The FAA requirements. Where the FAA refers to ‘‘operators’’ in the regulatory text and 4. Application for Database Access— considered including the specific listing Section 111.15 in part 111, but determined that the preamble, it is referring generally to approach would limit the reporting all operators, including air carriers and In the NPRM, the FAA proposed flexibility needed as training and other certificate holders, who would be requiring an operator’s responsible checking evolves in the future. The FAA subject to the applicability of this part. person to submit an application for also removed the reference to the FAA After review and evaluation of the database access including information from this definition, because roles and comments, the FAA amended the necessary for identity verification. The responsibilities assigned by an employer definition of ‘‘historical record’’ to proposed rule included the ability for a inherently are subject to FAA remove the reference to the responsible person to delegate PRD regulations or other regulations without Administrator, as it was not necessary. access to two other types of users explicit mention in this definition. In addition, this rule contains an (proxies and authorized users) and The FAA further establishes in this amended applicability provision proposed minimum qualification final rule what the Agency considers to describing PAO, which provides requirements for the responsible person. be a record associated with pilot specific criteria based directly on Proposed § 111.15 also included terms performance. In § 111.10, the FAA applicable statutory provisions. for continuing access to the PRD, defines a record pertaining to pilot This rule includes two definitions not requirements for changes to application performance as records of an activity or proposed in the NPRM, to add clarity to information, and timelines for event directly related to an individual’s the regulatory text regarding which compliance for new operators subject to completion of the core duties and operators are subject to each this part. This rule revises paragraph (a) to responsibilities of a pilot to maintain requirement. The FAA defines include an updated interim compliance safe aircraft operations. The duties and Reviewing entity as an operator subject date in which reporting entities must responsibilities are assigned by the to the applicability of subpart B of part submit an initial application for employer and are based on FAA 111 (Access to and Evaluation of database access. After considering regulations or other applicable Records); and Reporting entity as an comments received regarding observed regulations, such as the Transportation operator subject to the applicability of gaps in PRIA, particularly those Security Administration or the Pipelines subpart C of part 111 (Reporting of received from the NTSB and the and Hazardous Materials Safety Records). These definitions do not Families of Continental Flight 3407, the Administration. Ultimately, the substantively change part 111. The FAA did not adopt a regulatory FAA determined PRD implementation employer reporting the record would definition of ‘‘access the PRD,’’ but would be served best by ensuring determine whether the action causing confirms its meaning is to use the employers subject to the rule begin to the employer to terminate the pilot’s credentials issued by the Administrator transition from PRIA to PRD as soon as employment affected safe aircraft in accordance with this part to retrieve possible. The FAA also acknowledges operations, as it is a case-by-case information related to an individual comments received requesting greater determination. Situations may occur in pilot, to report to the PRD information collaboration with industry and more which a pilot’s behavior or actions are required by this part, or for a time to enable compliance, especially not directly related to operating the responsible person to manage user considering potential technological aircraft but still affect that pilot’s ability access. A pilot also would access the difficulties and the effects of the to maintain safe aircraft operations. One PRD to grant consent to a reviewing COVID–19 public health emergency on example of this would be documented entity to access that pilot’s records. the aviation industry. harassment of a coworker who operates Lastly, this rule does not include a The next step in building the industry an aircraft with that pilot, regardless of definition of writing/written in part 111. records component of the database and whether the harassment occurs during The FAA will provide the appropriate facilitating its use is to ensure each flight operations. Fear of harassment signature requirements within the operator subject to the applicability of could negatively affect safe aircraft identity verification mechanism of PRD this rule has identified a responsible operations. The FAA does not believe approval, as the FAA expects the PRD person in the database. The PRD that it should preclude an employer will accept digital signatures. Digital program manager will collaborate with from considering such an event as verification of the pilot’s identity by that individual on the transition process. Consequently, the FAA 40 logging into the PRD could also serve as Advisory Circular 120–68J, The Pilot Records includes a provision in § 111.15(a) Database and Pilot Records Improvement Act a signature. Advisory Circular, which will be published to the The FAA otherwise adopts § 111.10 requiring operators to submit an docket for this rulemaking. substantively as proposed. The FAA application with all of the information

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 31022 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

identified in § 111.15 by September 8, pilot for use by that company outside its 7. Prohibited Access or Use—Section 2021. Operators initiating operations specific employment with a particular 111.30 after September 8, 2021, must submit an operator for reporting or review of an The FAA proposed to prohibit application at least 30 days prior to individual pilot’s records. ‘‘Skimming’’ unauthorized access or use of the PRD, initiating operations. Additionally, or otherwise aggregating pilot data including a prohibition on sharing trustees in bankruptcy appointed for an outside of the PRD for re-sale or to records with anyone not directly operator subject to the applicability of provide a list of pre-screened pilots is involved in the hiring decision. The this rule must begin to comply with the strictly prohibited both by § 111.20 and FAA adopts § 111.30 as proposed, transition timelines of this rule as 49 U.S.C. 44703(i). except for a change to permit a pilot to Lastly, as proposed in the NPRM and prescribed by part 111, as applicable. share the pilot’s own PRD airman record as adopted in this final rule, PRD access Because a trustee can either be (PAR) without being subject to the for authorized users and proxies is delegated access or apply to be a prohibitions in part 111. responsible person, the FAA does not contingent on the continued validity of The FAA did not adopt the proposed envision that every trustee would the responsible person’s electronic definition of ‘‘directly involved in the submit an application, but to the extent access. hiring decision’’ as it is unnecessary. As a trustee would be a responsible person 6. Denial of Access—Section 111.25 stated in the NPRM, that phrase means: and is currently appointed in accordance with the criteria in this The NPRM proposed that access [A]ny individual who is responsible for section, the FAA would expect that credentials for the PRD would be subject making pilot hiring decisions on behalf of the employer or who is responsible for advising trustee to submit an application if the to duration, renewal, and cancellation for a length of time to be determined by the decision maker on whether or not to hire trustee will be a responsible person. an individual as a pilot. The FAA makes clarifying the Administrator. The FAA also amendments throughout the regulatory proposed conditions under which the Pilot records must not be shared outside text in § 111.15(b)–(h), but does not FAA could deny access to the PRD due of persons working on behalf of a make any other substantive changes to to misuse of the database, including reviewing entity in furtherance of that the requirements for the application for intentionally reporting inaccurate specific hiring process. database access, except to require information, and as necessary to protect In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to submission of a telephone number to the security of the PRD. The FAA require air carriers and other operators accompany the email address. In proposed denying access if an operator’s complying with subpart B to maintain response to a comment from CAA operating authority is revoked. The the privacy and confidentiality of pilot regarding how long the FAA expects to proposed rule included a procedure for records, as required by the PRD Act at take to approve the PRD user access, the reconsideration of denial of access. 49 U.S.C. 44703(i)(13). Specifically, the FAA requests applicants submit their The FAA revises and reorganizes FAA proposed to require air carriers and applications one week in advance of § 111.25 to remove duration, renewal, other operators to secure pilot records in necessary access. and cancellation of responsible person the normal course of business. The FAA credentials, and modifies the title of the adopts that proposed provision in this 5. Database Access—Section 111.20 section accordingly. Those provisions section with revisions to mirror the Proposed § 111.20 set forth the did not specify a timeframe for any of statutory standard for protection of such conditions under which authorized those activities as it relates to the records. The intent of the regulation as users and proxies, to whom a electronic credentials because the proposed does not change; for example, responsible person has delegated access, duration depends on the vendor if a hiring employer rendered pilot may access the PRD. Notably, persons providing the identity verification. information insecure by distributing may only access the PRD for purposes Because multiple ways exist for that pilot’s PAR throughout the of uploading, reviewing, or retrieving complying with application submittal, company to individuals not directly records in accordance with the identity verification, and approval for involved in the hiring process, the requirements of part 111. The FAA also access, the FAA will provide further hiring employer would be in violation proposed that if a responsible person’s detail regarding the technological of this regulation. PRD access is terminated, the access of specifications of user accounts. As In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to the authorized users and proxies may be stated in the NPRM, the PRD will mitigate risks to privacy by adopting terminated. comply with all Federal guidelines for strict privacy standards and establishing The FAA modifies proposed § 111.20 electronic databases. The final rule limits on access to the PRD, and adopts to consolidate parts of the section and retains the proposed provisions for those standards throughout this part. to convey the FAA’s intent to limit denial of access in this section, because Specifically, the FAA will adhere to access to the PRD in a manner that is the section contains the criteria under National Institute of Standards and aligned entirely with the purpose of the which database access may be denied Technology (NIST) Federal Information PRD Act. A person may access the PRD and does not contain specific terms Security Management Act (FISMA) only in a manner consistent with the based on changing technology the PRD 800.53 Security and Privacy Controls for purposes set forth in this section: For might use. The final rule also adds an Federal Information Systems and reporting pilot records or for reviewing intent requirement to one of the stated Organizations to secure information pilot records to inform a hiring decision bases for denial of access, such that the contained in the PRD. The FAA further about a specific pilot. The responsible intentional reporting of false or discusses issues raised by commenters person is accountable for ensuring that fraudulent information to the database with respect to pilot privacy in Section any person accessing the PRD complies is an enumerated reason to deny access. IV.C. with part 111 when reporting or The final rule further authorizes The FAA also removed paragraph (c) reviewing records on behalf of the denial of access if the FAA suspends an concerning the Administrator’s access responsible person. Further, under this operator’s operating authority, such as a and use of information maintained in final rule and in accordance with the letter of authorization or operating the database for purposes consistent PRD Act, proxy companies will not be certificate. This provision is otherwise with oversight. The FAA determined permitted to collect PRD data about any adopted as proposed. that while it will use its oversight

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31023

authority to ensure compliance with multiple times. Commenters also other than to meet PRD requirements. It part 111, it was not necessary to codify proposed different ways of adjusting the also commented that the NPRM permits the statement in the regulations. fee, which would have either benefited disclosure of information to correct a smaller operators or large operators condition that compromises safety, 8. Fraud and Falsification—Section depending on the method. consistent with an exception codified in 111.35 After considering the comments part 193. The commenter said that the The FAA proposed to prohibit received and the changes to the language in part 193 exceptions fraudulent or intentionally false structure of the database to ensure a includes ensuring ‘‘that the holder of an statements from being reported to the burden proportionate to the safety FAA certificate is qualified for that PRD. The FAA adopts § 111.35 benefits of this rule, the FAA certificate, and preventing ongoing substantively as proposed, with edits to determined to withdraw the user fee violations of safety or security the regulatory text to reorganize the proposal, for multiple reasons. The new regulations.’’ The commenter stated this section. Section V.C.11 contains a method of reporting in § 111.215 may raises the issue of whether the FAA summary of, and response to, comments require a reviewing entity to access a intends to use the submitted the FAA received regarding the pilot’s PAR more than once. information to take enforcement action. inclusion of false or fraudulent Uncertainties also exist regarding how The PlaneSense commenters and statements as it relates to the record COVID–19 will impact hiring for another individual recommended correction and dispute resolution reviewing entities, which would affect eliminating any reference to criminal process. the user fee analysis. Therefore, no fee investigation or prosecution and 9. Record Retention—Section 111.40 will exist for accessing the PRD at this providing that the information may only time. The FAA will continue to evaluate be disclosed pursuant to a duly issued In proposed § 111.50, the FAA the cost of the PRD and may revisit this court order or subpoena. The proposed to require records remain in determination at a later time. PlaneSense commenters also requested the PRD for the life of the pilot. The that the provision of the proposal ii. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) proposed rule stated a pilot’s records permitting release of records in the Requests—Proposed Section 111.45 would be removed from the database database in situations consistent with upon notification of death from next of Under § 111.45, the FAA proposed the safety responsibilities of the FAA kin or when 99 years have passed since that PRD records would be exempt from not be used without prior reason to do the individual’s date of birth. The FAA FOIA, with some exceptions, as set forth so arising out of facts and circumstances adopts this provision with one in 49 U.S.C. 44703(i)(9)(B). Specifically, occurring external to the database. substantive change, reorganizes the information reported to the PRD would Commenters said this section is section, and renumbers it as § 111.40. be subject to disclosure as follows: (1) overbroad and would permit the FAA to As summarized in Section IV.C and in De-identified, summarized information ‘‘go fishing’’ for enforcement response to comments, the FAA is may be disclosed to explain the need for information that might not otherwise removing the requirement that the changes in policies and regulations; (2) have been identified by the FAA in the notification of death come from the information may be disclosed to correct normal course of business. Commenters pilot’s next of kin. The FAA also a condition that compromises safety; (3) also opined that 24-hour access to data removed the record retention information may be disclosed to carry uploaded by those obligated to do so is instructions for such records from this out a criminal investigation or an unwelcome intrusion on both the regulatory provision. The record prosecution; (4) information may be pilots’ and the reporting employers’ retention term absent the notification of disclosed to comply with 49 U.S.C. privacy. death described in this section is 44905, regarding information about Another commenter recommended captured in the appropriate record threats to civil aviation; and (5) such the PRD have an Oversight Board to retention schedule. The removal of this information as the Administrator monitor the database, to request data term from the regulatory text does not determines necessary may be disclosed from FAA, and to conduct affect the FAA’s requirements for such if withholding the information would investigations into aviation safety issues information. not be consistent with the safety and training. The commenter said that Although identifying information responsibilities of the FAA. the PRD would fit well under the from the pilot’s record will be removed a. Comments Received Aviation Safety Information Analysis after notification of death or 99 years and Sharing umbrella and have passed since the individual’s date A4A, the PlaneSense commenters, recommended that the FAA look at this of birth, the FAA may use de-identified and an individual commented on program. information from those pilots in the proposed § 111.45, which addresses the A4A suggested that the FAA includes database for research and statistical FOIA requests. The commenters an additional exception to PRD data purposes to further the Agency’s safety generally agreed with the proposal to disclosure under FOIA that permits PRD mission. exempt certain information reported to data disclosure only to the extent 10. Sections Not Adopted the PRD from disclosure in response to permitted by the Privacy Act, including FOIA requests but relayed specific routine uses described in the System of i. User Fee—Proposed Section 111.40 concerns regarding the language of the Records Notice for DOT/FAA, Aviation Previously, § 111.40 contained the section or on the scope of the Records on Individuals. A4A FAA’s proposal for a user fee for information permitted to be released. commented that the FAA should accessing the PRD to evaluate pilot A4A also recommended the FAA clarify provide the public with an opportunity records. The FAA received comments the definition of ‘‘de-identify,’’ and to discuss what disclosures, permitted from both organizations and individuals what information can be shared with by the Privacy Act, it shall include for regarding the proposed user fee, most NTSB officials, and that carriers should purposes of the PRD Act. expressing opposition. Commenters have the ability to limit access to certain were concerned about the cost of the fee kinds of records. A4A stated that the b. FAA Response and how a fee would affect a reviewing FAA must state explicitly whether it The FAA does not adopt the proposal entity’s ability to view a pilot’s PAR intends to use PRD data for purposes to include the statutory disclosure

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 31024 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

prohibitions in regulatory text because dot.gov/privacy and in the public docket PRD records on short notice would be the statutory protections exist regardless for this rulemaking. impossible. Overall, some commenters of inclusion in this regulation. The FAA generally contended operators would B. Subpart B—Access to and Evaluation will process all FOIA requests in not use the database. of Records accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552 and ii. FAA Response current Agency procedure for such 1. Applicability—Section 111.100 The FAA agrees that all entities requests, claiming FOIA exemptions In the NPRM, the FAA proposed that associated with the statutory protections subject to this rule have an inherent part 119 certificate holders, fractional incentive to make informed hiring listed in 49 U.S.C. 44703(i)(9)(B), where ownership programs, and operators applicable. decisions when hiring pilots. The FAA conducting air tour operations would be reiterates that the PRD is not intended Regarding comments on records required to access the PRD to evaluate to be the only source of information contained in the PRD that would be a pilot’s records. The FAA adopts used by a subject employer when hiring subject to potential disclosure if the § 111.100 substantively as proposed. a pilot. Neither does this rule tell a information is used as part of a criminal The applicability of this subpart prospective employer what hiring investigation or prosecution, the PRD remains unchanged from the NPRM. decision to make on a pilot’s job Act specifically excludes information The FAA made edits to maximize application after viewing pertinent used to carry out a criminal regulatory clarity and to capture information in the PRD. Rather, investigation or prosecution from the corresponding changes from other consistent with the PRD Act and the information protection described in 49 sections of part 111, as well as to FAA’s safety mission, this rule will U.S.C. 44703(i)(9)(B). The PRD Act does consolidate duplicative requirements, ensure that critical information not narrow that exclusion to apply only and to add compliance dates for subpart regarding a pilot’s record does not go to information provided in response to B to this section. unnoticed or unshared. Regarding the a duly-issued court order or subpoena. i. Comments Received comments about pre-existing The FAA will handle requests for such coordination between flight information in accordance with The NTSB expressed support for the departments, the FAA notes that established practices for provision of proposal to extend the evaluation corporate flight departments as set forth information used to carry out a criminal requirements to non-air carrier entities, in the applicability of this section are investigation or prosecution. As allowed including corporate flight departments not required to review records under by the PRD Act, the FAA may also use and air tour operators conducting part 111, but may opt into the database de-identified, summarized information operations in accordance with § 91.147. voluntarily for record review. to explain the need for changes in The NTSB noted that the FAA, in In response to the commenter who policies and regulations. Statistical response to Safety Recommendation A– was concerned about a lack of time to information derived from such de- 05–01, proposed to require all review a pilot’s record’s on short notice, identified information may become applicable operators to access and the FAA reiterates that a primary available to the public in the future. A evaluate a pilot’s records in the PRD advantage of the PRD is the availability commenter requested clarification before making a hiring decision. The of records for hiring employers in an regarding the FAA’s meaning of ‘‘de- NTSB stated if the final rule is electronic database that is easily identified.’’ The term ‘‘de-identified’’ consistent with the NPRM, it believes accessible. has a similar definition to the definition the final rule would meet the intent of The FAA adopts revised compliance the commenter mentioned from part Safety Recommendation A–05–01. A4A timelines for subpart B in this section. 193.41 The FAA would also remove the stated it believes the PRD information Under § 111.15, all operators required to pilot’s certificate number so that there will be used earlier in the hiring process comply with subpart B will have a would be no way to discern the pilot’s before a conditional offer of responsible person established in the identifying information. The FAA does employment is made to the pilot. One database beginning no later than 90 days not retrieve pilots’ records from the PRD individual commented that use of the after the date of publication of the final for FAA enforcement or investigative PRD will lead to a safer transportation rule, so the review of FAA records in purposes related to the pilots system and that the system should not the PRD is the next logical step toward themselves. rely on pilot record books. facilitating full compliance with part The PRD Act, at 49 U.S.C. 44703(k), Other commenters suggested the PRD 111. Some operators are already using does not preclude the availability of a would not be helpful in the hiring the PRD optionally to review FAA pilot’s information to the NTSB in process because operators and owners records. The FAA acknowledges that the accordance with an investigation. The already are incentivized to make NTSB as well as members of Congress FAA would make records available to informed hiring decisions based on a and the Families of Continental Flight the NTSB in accordance with rigorous interviewing and screening 3407 are invested in the quick established procedures for provision of process, regardless of regulatory implementation of the PRD. The FAA such information. Lastly, the FAA requirements, given the significant finds that interim compliance helps declines to establish an Oversight Board liability associated with those decisions. quicken implementation and facilitates for the PRD, as doing so by regulation Commenters also felt the PRD would not the successful long-term transition from is beyond the scope of the proposed be beneficial for part 91 operators, PRIA to PRD. Entities utilizing and load- rule. opposed requiring any part 91 operators testing the PRD will help grow its to review records, and indicated part 91 capabilities for upload of industry The FAA will publish an updated operators communicate directly with records. Compliance with review of Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) for the other flight departments as part of the industry records begins one year after PRD system, which will be available at applicant screening process. An the date of publication of the final rule individual commenter noted some and the proposed date by which 41 In 14 CFR part 193, ‘‘de-identified’’ means that the identity of the source of the information, and operators do not have fulltime pilots operators must comply with all of part the names of persons have been removed from the and often need crew at the last minute, 111 is extended one year from the information. and asserted accessing and evaluating proposal to three years and 90 days after

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31025

the date of publication of the final rule, A4A noted the PRIA records are review of a pilot’s records for hiring as discussed in Section V.A.2. available to the hiring committee for decisions. In citing the PRD’s usefulness In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to review; however, it was not apparent to for personnel management decisions, allow corporate flight departments and A4A if the hiring committee will have the FAA meant that having pertinent PAO the discretion to choose to review access to the record. A4A urged the information before allowing an certain records in accordance with FAA to eliminate the hiring language individual to begin service as a pilot can subpart B. Regardless of this choice, the from the final rule and clarify there is aid operators in overall personnel proposed rule would have required all no change in carrier obligation to review management. As such, the FAA will not such operators to comply with all the records prior to an individual beginning allow access to the PRD for other reporting requirements of subpart C. For service as a pilot. CAA also commented purposes. those operators, the FAA adds a that it is unclear how hiring committees Review of a pilot’s record, as set forth provision to require those operators to assigned to review the records and rank in § 111.10, must occur before the pilot comply with § 111.120 (requiring applications for the future will be able begins service as a pilot. This receipt of pilot consent), to ensure to access the records and conduct clarification is discussed further in compliance with those protections. reviews if only one of three individuals Section V.A.3. Corporate flight departments and PAO on a committee has access to review The PRD Act does not provide choosing to access the PRD for record records, especially considering the discretion to allow access to the PRD for review must comply with certain proposed user fee charged to the record review to anyone except a person requirements regarding pilot consent, operator each time the record is from a reviewing entity who evaluates but are not required to comply fully accessed. those records prior to permitting an with other provisions in subpart B. CAPA commented that the proposed individual to begin service as a pilot rule indicates that the PRD is only to be crewmember. Whoever the responsible 2. Evaluation of Pilot Records and used for pilot hiring purposes, but the person delegates to access the PRD will Limitations on Use—Section 111.105 NPRM also mentions ‘‘assisting air be able to evaluate those records for the In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to carriers in making informed hiring and limited purpose of reviewing prohibit operators subject to this part personnel management decisions.’’ information relevant to hiring decisions. from permitting an individual to begin CAPA expressed concern about this This rule addresses consent and service as a pilot prior to reviewing that contradiction and recommended it be privacy concerns, especially regarding pilot’s records in the PRD. The records corrected. sensitive pilot records, by providing proposed to be reviewed included FAA A4A also noted the NPRM proposes to safeguards in part 111. Further, the FAA records, records populated from current limit the use of PRD data to permit takes seriously its fulfillment of all and former employers reporting records using the data only for the purpose of confidentiality requirements pertaining in accordance with subpart C, historical determining whether to hire a pilot. to the release of a pilot’s drug and records, and NDR records. The FAA also A4A argues that, while a safety benefit alcohol information, in accordance with proposed prohibiting misuse of the exists for having current information for 49 CFR part 40. database, including reviewing records prospective pilots, the rule should also The FAA amends § 111.105 to make without pilot consent, permitting contain a provision to allow for access corresponding changes to subpart B to someone to access the database without to other information that would be accommodate the new alternate method proper authorization, and using pilot mutually beneficial to the individual of reporting records permitted by information for any purpose other than pilot and the current employer. § 111.215 for certain operators. The FAA determining whether to hire a particular A4A further recommended the FAA also removes the prohibition on pilot. clarify that an air carrier would have the reviewing records without pilot consent, ability to limit access to specific types as it was duplicative of § 111.120. i. Comments Received of pilot records (training, drug and Changes to § 111.105(a)(1) and (2) CAPA indicated that the FAA stated alcohol) with regard to what types of split review of FAA records from this proposal does not contain a records particular personnel of the air industry records to facilitate use of the requirement for a substantial increase in carrier are or able to access about a PRD to review all FAA records records kept by the carrier; however, particular pilot. A4A said the NPRM beginning 180 days from the date of CAPA noted the PRD Act and the NPRM does not state explicitly that authorized publication of the final rule. Industry is require evaluation of records. CAPA users with access to a pilot’s records are already required to review these FAA expressed concern about safeguards to limited with regard to records they may records under PRIA, so this change only ensure the carrier performs this be able to access about a particular pilot. affects the vehicle by which they access evaluation with a set of standard A4A recommended the FAA further these records. metrics. CAPA recommended the FAA limit access to confidential drug and Section 111.105(a)(4) also includes a require pilots’ labor organizations, alcohol testing records in the PRD to air new provision associated with airline management, and the FAA to carrier-designated persons that § 111.215, which enables a new method perform the evaluation jointly, as has administer the drug and alcohol testing of reporting for certain operators. been done in other successful program. Section 111.105(a)(4) requires persons collaborations, such as ASAP. reviewing records in accordance with Ameristar sought clarification ii. FAA Response subpart B to compare the records in the regarding who is responsible for The FAA will not standardize review pilot’s PAR to the list of employers evaluating a pilot’s records. Ameristar criteria or metrics for review of pilot provided with the pilot’s consent form also recommended that the FAA modify records, because every employer’s (See Section V.D.3.). If an employer has proposed § 111.105(a)(3) to state the hiring practices are different. The PRD not uploaded records relating to that requirement specifically rather than is simply a means of providing pilot pilot but the employer appears as a refer to 49 U.S.C. 44703(h). Ameristar information for hiring decisions. former employer on the list provided by also commented that proposed The FAA is limited by statute from the pilot, the PRD will generate a § 111.105(b) appears to duplicate permitting the use of the PRD for any request for the reviewing entity that proposed § 111.120. purpose other than an employer’s goes directly to the reporting entity, by

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 31026 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

notifying the responsible person were not able to do so, due to no fault For application to the PRD, the identified on the application in of the hiring employer. The FAA also reviewing entity’s following activities § 111.15. As described further in Section proposed that it may notify a hiring would suffice to fulfill the reviewing V.C.4., the reviewing entity will receive employer if it has knowledge that a entity’s obligation under the PRD: Query a notification once any relevant records pilot’s records in the PRD might be of the PRD, completion of the NDR have been reported, or notification that incomplete due to dissolution of an check, review of the pilot’s employment no applicable additional records are organization or other issues with a prior history, submission of requests to any available to report. employer. employers listed on the pilot’s This proposed rule adopts the employment history that have not remainder of § 111.105, as proposed. i. Comments Received indicated that all records for that pilot NBAA recommended that the FAA are already in the PRD, and submission 3. Motor Vehicle Driving Record should more clearly define ‘‘good faith’’ of PRIA requests to all the employers Request—Section 111.110 in accordance with existing PRIA listed on the pilot’s employment history In § 111.110, the FAA proposed that language in PRIA AC120–68G, which either in the PRD or with FAA form all operators subject to part 111, with uses the phrase ‘‘documented attempt to 8060–11. When the reviewing entity exceptions, must query the National obtain such information.’’ waits at least 30 calendar days to receive Driver Register (NDR) prior to NBAA recommended the FAA extend those records and completes the PRD- permitting an individual to begin the good faith exception to the related activities described above, the service as a pilot, to obtain and review requirement in § 111.115 to report good faith exception would be available State records on the motor vehicle historical information under § 111.205. to the reviewing entity. driving history of the pilot. The FAA NBAA explained many non-air carrier Regarding the comment to extend the proposed that entities querying the NDR operators have not maintained the good faith exception to historical record would have to keep substantiating records that would be subject to reporting, the FAA emphasizes that the documentation for five years to ensure reporting under the proposed rule. Of good faith exception in § 111.115 is that the FAA would be able to audit, if those non-air carrier operators that have written to apply generally to persons necessary, the completion of this search. maintained records, NBAA indicated subject to this subpart who are evaluating any records pertaining to the i. Comments Received the records may not be in a format that allows for reasonable reporting that is individual’s previous employment as a A4A supported that the FAA did not not unduly burdensome. NBAA pilot and therefore would be available require motor vehicle driving record expressed concern that requiring for any records regarding a pilot, information to be entered in the PRD, operators to report records not historical or contemporaneous. stating that this approach reduced maintained beyond the five-year period opportunity for the PRD to include 5. Pilot Consent and Right of Review— required by PRIA will encourage Section 111.120 inaccurate or incomplete pilot operators to manufacture records, In § 111.120, the FAA proposed to information. A4A also stated this policy diminishing the value of any accurate prohibit an operator reviewing records is consistent with the ARC historical information in the database. from doing so prior to receiving consent recommendation regarding NDR data. Ameristar noted ‘‘good faith’’ effort in from the pilot whose records it is Ameristar recommended that the FAA proposed §§ 111.115(a)(1) and reviewing and proposed requiring the revise § 111.110(a)(3)(i) by replacing ‘‘49 111.410(a) is not defined and is consent be reported to the database. The U.S.C. 30301’’ with ‘‘a state subjective, and recommended the FAA FAA also proposed requiring the hiring participating in the NDR Program,’’ define it. Ameristar suggested a employer to provide the pilot with a explaining that without this change, registered letter sent to the last known copy of any records received from the operators have to reference the statute. place of business would constitute a NDR upon request. ii. FAA Response good faith effort and has been accepted A4A asked the FAA to expand the by FAA inspectors in the past. Section 111.110 is adopted pilot consent process beyond the scope Ameristar also recommended that the substantively as proposed, with minor of just the PRD to enable receipt by an FAA state some acceptable methods of revisions. The FAA added a reference to operator of a pilot certificate or medical compliance in the rule to provide § 111.310 in paragraph (a)(1) of certificate upon renewal or change, to guidance to affected parties. As an § 111.110, to note that operators facilitate compliance with § 121.383. example, Ameristar stated certified mail required to review records that do not The FAA determined that use of the return receipt requested or an hold a certificate under part 119 are not PRD for this purpose is beyond the acknowledged email should be required to query the NDR. PRIA scope of the PRD Act with respect to acceptable. specified that air carriers must review purposes for which information in the any NDR records while evaluating the ii. FAA Response PRD may be used.42 Other comments regarding pilot privacy are discussed in other pilot records. The FAA Section 111.115 is adopted as Section IV.C. determined that it would be appropriate proposed. The meaning of ‘‘good faith’’ The FAA adopts § 111.120 as not to extend the requirement to part 91 as used in part 111 comports with the proposed, with minor edits and one operations, consistent with the FAA’s current PRIA AC120–68G, which reads: risk-based approach for regulating substantive change. The FAA amends entities that do not hold a part 119 If a pilot/applicant’s former employer has the regulatory text such that accessing certificate. not responded after 30 calendar-days, the PRD to check whether the pilot has document your attempts to obtain the PRIA granted consent for that operator to view 4. Good Faith Exception—Section records from them and contact the PRIA the pilot’s records would not be a 111.115 program manager to determine its status (see paragraph 3.5.2). If the nonresponding violation of this regulation. The activity The FAA proposed to include relief employer is bankrupt, out of business, or is prohibited would be actual retrieval of from the record review requirement for a foreign entity, your documented attempts to the records prior to receiving consent. operators that made a good faith effort contact that employer fulfill your obligation to obtain pilot records from the PRD but under PRIA. 42 49 U.S.C. 44703(i)(9)(A).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31027

Although such retrieval will not be through March 2010. Actions resulting ii. Comments on Use of Aircraft possible based on the technological in revocations were never expunged. Accident and Incident Data for the restrictions imposed on the PRD by the Following the enactment of the PRD Proposed Rule system itself, the regulation also Act, the FAA examined whether the CAPA expressed concern about the prohibits such retrieval in the absence expunction of certain enforcement FAA’s use of aircraft accident and of pilot consent. actions could continue in light of the incident data and suggested that the 6. FAA Records—Section 111.135 data collection, data retention, and FAA’s use of this data exceeds the scope In the NPRM, the FAA proposed FOIA protection requirements of the of its mandate under the PRD Act. requiring operators to review FAA PRD. Accordingly, FAA published a CAPA noted no current regulation or records in the PRD. Specifically, the notice (76 FR 7893, February 11, 2011) accepted practice exists in which the FAA proposed that hiring employers temporarily suspending its expunction difficulty a pilot may have had in must review: Records related to current policy. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed meeting a standard is considered in the pilot and medical certificate to maintain its current suspension of the pilot’s ability to perform duties once the information, including associated type expunction policy. Under existing pilot has met that standard. CAPA argued if the objective is to identify ratings and information on any policy, the FAA expunges an pilots who are perceived to have ‘‘failed limitations to those certificates and enforcement record in the Enforcement ratings; records maintained by the too often’’ in their attempt to meet a Information System (EIS), and only the standard, then the standard should be Administrator concerning any failed information identifying the subject of attempt of an individual to pass a the subject of additional review. CAPA the enforcement action is deleted (name, also stated the evaluation standards practical test required to obtain a address, certificate number, etc.). The certificate or type rating under 14 CFR remain equal for all applicants PRD Act, however, obligates the FAA to part 61; records related to enforcement regardless of the training necessary to ‘‘maintain all records entered into the actions resulting in a finding by the successfully complete an evaluation. [PRD] pertaining to an individual until Administrator that was not iii. FAA Response subsequently overturned of a violation the date of receipt of notification that of 49 U.S.C. or a regulation prescribed the individual is deceased.’’ As FAA The FAA adopts the provision as or order issued under that title; records records are part of the ‘‘records entered proposed in the NPRM with respect to related to an individual acting as pilot into the [PRD] pertaining to an the FAA’s maintenance of its records in in command or second in command individual,’’ the FAA interprets the PRD the PRD for the life of the pilot. during an aviation accident or incident; Act to require that a pilot’s records Accordingly, the FAA is amending the records related to an individual’s pre- cannot be expunged until the FAA has records schedules for EIS records and employment drug and alcohol testing received notice of an individual’s death, AIDS records for this final rule. As history; and drug and alcohol records or until 99 years have passed since that discussed in the NPRM, the PRD Act reported to the FAA by employers pilot’s date of birth. requires pilot records to be kept ‘‘for the regulated under other Department of life of the pilot.’’ Because a hiring NBAA stated that the FAA’s employer could view a pilot’s records Transportation regulations for whom expunction policy is consistent with the that individual worked as a pilot. indefinitely in the PRD, no harm results Privacy Act and that the FAA must still from maintaining suspension of the i. Comments on the FAA’s Expunction meet the requirements of the Privacy expunction policy with respect to Policy Act despite the PRD. NBAA further records in EIS. The FAA formerly maintained a long- commented that by maintaining The FAA records within the PRD are standing policy to expunge historical information in the PRD while limiting considered copies of records maintained airman and enforcement records.43 The access to qualified employers, the FAA in the CAIS, AIDS, and EIS databases. policy provided that, generally, records is still able to expunge other records and These databases are subject to the U.S. of legal enforcement actions involving databases, such as the EIS. The Department of Transportation’s system suspension of an airman certificate or a commenter said that closed legal of records notice (SORN) entitled DOT/ civil penalty against an individual were enforcement actions are neither relevant FAA 847, Aviation Records on maintained by the FAA for five years nor timely after a certain length of time. Individuals (November 9, 2010, 75 FR before being expunged. Records were NBAA endorsed the PRD ARC 68849) and are made available to not expunged if, at the time expunction recommendation to reinstate the 5-year reviewing entities consistent with the was due, one or more other legal expunction policy for enforcement consent provided by the pilot. enforcement actions were pending actions for all pilot records and the Records integrated within the against the same individual. The recommendation that if the FAA individual PARs, and records that outcome of the most recent legal determines records should be operators provide for inclusion within enforcement action determined when maintained indefinitely as a result of the the PRD, are not considered to be part the older action was expunged; for PRD Act, the records maintained in the of an FAA system as those records, example, if a pilot’s certificate was PRD should be expunged from EIS and when connected to a pilot with suspended in May 2000, but received any other FAA recordkeeping systems identifying information, are not used by the Department in support of its another suspension in March 2005, both that contain them. actions would be expunged in March mission. The FAA’s retrieval of these 2010, if no other enforcement actions RAA supported the proposal to records by unique identifier may only were brought against the individual maintain the current suspension of the occur for administrative purposes. expunction policy for all relevant EIS, Rarely, the FAA may retrieve records 43 The FAA adopted a policy to expunge records CAIS, and AIDS records. The from the system by unique identifier to of certain closed legal enforcement actions against commenter also pointed to concerns respond to external criminal law individuals. This policy applies to both airman expressed by the PRD ARC and asserted investigation requests, or as part of an certificate holders and other individuals, such as passengers. FAA Enforcement Records; Expunction that the provisions of the PRD Act FAA investigation of the operator’s Policy. 56 FR 55788. (Oct. 29, 1991). conflict with the Privacy Act. compliance with PRD regulations. The

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 31028 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

FAA does not retrieve pilots’ records ii. Comments Received consent’’.44 The FAA considers the from the PRD for FAA enforcement or consent requirements of §§ 111.120 and investigative purposes related to the A4A commented that the liability 111.310 to constitute the consent that pilots themselves. release provision proposed in the NPRM section 44703(j) intends. A court could However, the Department is in § 111.125 reflects the current and cite this statute in determining that a committed to ensuring that these appropriate requirements, by providing litigant does not have standing to bring sensitive records are managed in a a release from liability except where a claim, but codifying a regulation to manner consistent with the Privacy Act information is known to be false and further memorialize the provision is not and the Fair Information Practice maintained in violation of a criminal necessary. Principles, and will protect the records statute. Additionally, A4A contended the proposal provides reasonable C. Subpart C—Reporting of Records by in accordance with the Departmental Operators Privacy Risk Management Policy, DOT protections, which the PRD Act does not Order 1351.18 and applicable Office of require, for refusal to hire a pilot that 1. Applicability—Section 111.200 does not provide consent or liability Management and Budget Guidance for In the NPRM, the FAA proposed that the protection of personally identifiable release requested by a carrier. A4A certain operators would be required to information. suggested that the FAA clarify that report records to the PRD, in accordance The FAA also adopts the requirement carriers can determine the process by with the statute. The FAA adopts this for review of records related to an which a release is obtained from the section substantively as proposed, with aviation accident or incident as pilot and not foreclose future options. edits for consistency with other parts of proposed. The FAA explained in the NBAA commented that release from the regulatory text throughout this NPRM that including accident and liability provisions apply only with section and with additional text. incident data in the PRD would provide respect to the entry of covered data and In this section, the FAA adds a more holistic historical record of a covered entities; in this regard, air compliance dates for when reporting of pilot, when combined with the other carriers are not given immunity if they records to the PRD begins. The FAA records proposed to be reported to the overreach by entering data that goes expects to be able to accept industry PRD by operators that previously beyond the statute. NBAA records beginning June 10, 2022. As employed the pilot. The FAA has the recommended the FAA align the such, operators currently engaging in authority to identify, gather, and share proposed regulation with existing laws operations, or that initiate operations that data, and has determined that doing and include additional provisions to prior to June 10, 2022, must begin so in the PRD is consistent with the PRD protect employers required to submit reporting new records described by Act. records to the database. NBAA also § 111.205(b)(1) on June 10, 2022. The FAA enters a pilot’s pre- expressed concern that part 111 Operators initiating operations after that employment and non-FAA drug and improperly regulates the employer- date must begin complying with the alcohol history into the PRD; however, employee relationship and could be PRD within 30 days of receiving their these are not FAA records. Instead, the inconsistent with State employment operations specifications. Historical respective employer that conducted the laws. record reporting falls on a different test or determined the violation timeline and the FAA states in this occurred is responsible for the records. iii. FAA Response section that the schedule for historical record reporting is set forth in § 111.255. The FAA adopts § 111.135 with no The FAA does not have the authority Comments regarding the compliance substantive changes, but with minor to expand the release beyond what is timeline for reporting historical records edits, for clarity. described explicitly by statute. Only are found in Section V.E. 7. Sections Not Adopted Congress can establish statutory liability release provisions. Furthermore, 2. Reporting Requirements—Section i. Refusal To Hire and Release From Congress required the FAA to establish 111.205 Liability the PRD. The FAA is not aware of State In § 111.205, the FAA proposed In accordance with the statutory law that would affect FAA regulation of general requirements for compliance requirement set forth in 49 U.S.C. a Federal database for pilot records. with subpart C. The proposal required 44703(i), the FAA proposed permitting Further, as discussed in the NPRM, operators subject to part 111 to report hiring employers to require a pilot to the FAA recognizes that 49 CFR 40.27 new records about a pilot it employs as execute a release from liability for any prohibits employers from having their well as historical records about a pilot claim arising from use of the PRD in employees execute any release ‘‘with currently or previously employed. accordance with the regulations. The respect to any part of the drug or alcohol Proposed § 111.205 would prohibit FAA also noted that the release from testing process.’’ However, the FAA inclusion of the information not liability would not apply to any considers drug and alcohol testing permitted to be entered into the PRD as improper use of the PRD, as described records stored in the PRD to be outside described in § 111.245. in the proposed regulation. The FAA the testing process for the purpose of The FAA amends the proposal also proposed to permit an air carrier or DOT enforcement. Therefore, drug and concerning § 111.205 to add the PRD operator to refuse to hire a pilot if the alcohol testing records stored in and date of hire to the list of information pilot does not provide consent to the supplied by the PRD are not excluded that an operator is required to enter operator to evaluate the pilot’s records from the liability release set forth in the about a pilot. Otherwise, this section is or if the pilot does not execute a release statute. adopted substantively as proposed. from liability for any claims arising from The FAA does not adopt the proposed proper use of the PRD by the operator. 44 Specifically, 49 U.S.C. 44703(j)(4)(A) states that The proposed regulatory text also provisions. Upon further review, the an ’’ air carrier may refuse to hire an individual as prohibited a pilot from bringing any FAA determined that memorializing a pilot if the individual did not provide written action or proceeding against a hiring these statutory requirements in consent for the air carrier to receive records under regulation is unnecessary. Title 49 subsection (h)(2)(A) or (i)(3)(A) or did not execute employer for a refusal to hire the pilot the release from liability requested under for any reason described in this section. U.S.C. 44703(j) refers to ‘‘written subsection (h)(2)(B) or (i)(3)(B).’’

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31029

Comments relating to the applicability standards for bulk data transfer and commented that it is difficult to answer of the reporting requirements of part 111 engage carrier technical representatives. Question 3 until an example of the are discussed primarily in Section IV.B. A4A further recommended that the FAA proposed XML data transfer format is provide carrier representatives with available for testing. Also responding to 3. Format for Reporting Information— information on the lessons learned by Question 3, CAPA stated there should Section 111.210 the Federal Motor Carrier Safety be an opportunity for the public to make In the NPRM, the FAA proposed that Administration in the Commercial additional comments if the FAA operators would have to report Driver’s License Drug and Alcohol chooses to collect any type of historical information to the PRD in a form and Clearinghouse. RAA requested that a record not previously mentioned. manner prescribed by the guide to XML be provided to PRD users In response to Question 5, RAA stated Administrator. at the close of the comment period, or that a text box could be useful in i. Comments Received at the earliest possible time. A4A also providing narrative explanations for asked for technical clarification on how historical records, but risks providing A4A took issue with the fact that the bulk records should be uploaded to the unneeded information to the receiving proposed rule creates a database of pilot PRD. carrier. RAA suggested that the FAA record summaries, not of pilot records. Ameristar and Atlas Air also could limit this through a drop-down A4A said summaries are contrary to the expressed concerns about the format for menu. Also responding to Question 5, PRD statute, which requires an uploading records, stating that it would CAPA stated that this question is electronic database for records ‘‘that are affect the timing and cost of compliance. confusing because under the NPRM a maintained by the air carrier.’’ A4A Ameristar notes that the definition of pilot would already have an opportunity added that this is an arbitrary and ‘‘report to the PRD’’ is open-ended. to correct inaccurate data. CAPA further capricious reversal of the FAA’s own The National Air Transportation stated that the FAA should clarify its interpretation of what constitutes a Association (NATA) recommended that intention, and also asked whether there ‘‘record’’ and substantially increases the the FAA extend the historical period for would be one data package to correct costs of the proposed regulation while data transmission and allow the the entire package, one per section, or reducing the quality and quantity of uploading of original documents. NATA some other arrangement. information available in the PRD as stated that only 12% of carriers are The Families of Continental Flight compared to the PRIA record exchange using electronic pilot records, and the 3407 emphasized that the database will program. A4A was especially concerned significant majority of recordkeeping only be as effective as the quality of the about the proposed requirement to input systems do not have the ability to create data entered into it and that there will summaries of historical records, rather an XML program to sweep up the data need to be a continuous quality control than scans of the records themselves. fields for transmission. NATA stated process in place as the database is put A4A stated that the FAA should provide that it expects a large number of part into operation. These commenters the option to upload images of entire 135 carriers to use manual entry, and called on the FAA and all stakeholders documents rather than relying on that rushing could cause unnecessary to make their best possible effort in this summaries. errors that would be difficult to correct regard. A4A contends that the PRD does not and only discovered in pilot disputes. A4A also said the final rule should provide potential employers with the Ameristar stated the PRD should clarify the requirement for most records level of comprehensive information allow text submissions of historical to be reported ‘‘within 30 days’’ of the Congress intended and that PRIA records, noting the wide availability of event, and that the rule does not provides currently. A4A noted that the ASCII format. The commenter also prohibit submission of information after under PRIA, a hiring carrier would recommended all historical records be 30 days. receive the pilot’s record and could allowed in the format in which the ii. FAA Response review any incidents demonstrating that carrier maintained those records. a pilot has difficulty with crew resource In the NPRM, the FAA requested Section 111.210 is adopted as management, even if the final comments on five questions related to proposed. The FAA provides a disciplinary action is removed from the the input of historical records.45 RAA description of an initial means of record via settlement. Under the compliance for the format for reporting proposed rule, however, that 45 85 FR 17678 (March 30, 2020). The questions information in AC 20–68J information would not be captured in included: accompanying this rule. the PRD because if a settlement 1. What level of detail (e.g., training completion The NPRM proposed that operators overturns a disciplinary action, the dates or the pilot’s entire training record including each activity/task and outcome) do operators keep summarize the information from a entire record related to that action for historical pilot records dating back to August 1, pilot’s record, rather than submitting the would be excluded from the PRD. 2005 and how accurately do the data requirements actual records to the PRD. Table 3 of the Moreover, A4A noted, once PRIA outlined in Table 3 reflect that level of detail? NPRM outlined the data elements sunsets, those records will be 2. Are air carriers or operators maintaining other necessary to include in the summary. permanently inaccessible to potential relevant records used by an air carrier or operator in making a hiring decision that the FAA has not The FAA acknowledged that many employers. considered or not chosen to include as a historic operators have maintained records in A4A noted the NPRM provides no data requirement in this proposal? accordance with PRIA in varying technical information on how an 3. What amount of effort do employers perceive degrees of detail, so the FAA’s intent employer must report extensive pilot will be involved in reviewing the historic data and structuring it into an XML format? The FAA would with requiring submission of a summary records into the PRD; therefore, the also welcome information from any employers that rather than an original record was to public cannot provide precise do not intend to use the back-end XML solution? create a standardized process and best information on the potential impact of 4. How quickly do air carriers and other operators practice for obtaining the relevant this regulation without having the believe they will be able to migrate their PRIA information. Further, the NPRM stated technical requirements to report records into the PRD? 5. Would it be helpful from either a pilot or a that clearly defining the specific data information into the PRD. A4A hiring employer’s perspective to include a text box recommended that the FAA consider (with a limited character count) for a pilot to be able information concerning a historical record? Would offering both XML and JSON formats as to provide a narrative explanation of further this also be helpful for present-day records?

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 31030 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

elements in this proposed rule would the PRD requires the FAA to ensure for using both methods will be enable reporting entities to refine the pilot privacy is protected. Because the described in AC 120–68J and other PRD information included in the PRD that Administrator cannot effectively review user guides. hiring operators find most useful for for quality control every record that an The FAA confirms that while hiring decisions, rather than entering all operator may upload to the PRD, the reporting records beyond the 30-day data maintained on an individual pilot FAA proposed requiring standardized timeline may be possible technically, throughout his or her career. Lastly, formats for such records. By using such doing so is inconsistent with the requiring records to be entered in a formats, the PRD will ensure that regulatory requirement to report records standardized format is consistent with specific data points are validated at the within 30 days when reporting in NTSB Recommendations A–10–17 and time of record upload. Accordingly, the accordance with § 111.215(a). A–10–19. FAA has used its discretion to The FAA removed the proposed The FAA confirms in this action that determine that, specific to the PRD and regulatory definition of ‘‘report to the the summary approach would be used its broad coverage of records and PRD’’ because the requirement is for current, future, and historical mandate to protect pilot privacy, a inherent in the regulation itself. By records. The FAA reaffirms the NPRM summary of that information rather than following the requirements of part 111, discussion on the data elements and wholesale submission of the underlying the operator is reporting to the PRD. information required for the summaries records provides the most efficient, 4. Method of Reporting—Section which emphasized that the summary standardized, and succinct vehicle to 111.215 approach was taken specifically to meet Congressional intent concerning improve the quality of the information the information reported to the PRD and In the NPRM, the FAA proposed that submitted to the PRD. The FAA notes, the privacy protections the FAA must all records would be uploaded within with respect to A4A’s comment afford pilots. Therefore, the FAA 30 days of record creation. As regarding subsequently overturned disagrees with the commenters who mentioned previously in Section IV.C, disciplinary actions, that the PRD Act indicated the PRD should contain this rule adds a method of reporting and PRIA share identical language with images or scans of the original records. records under subpart B for certain respect to excluding disciplinary actions The FAA will make available two operators. New § 111.215 now offers the that were subsequently overturned. primary methods for entering records option for some operators to report While the PRD Act requires that air into the PRD: Manual entry and an certain pilot records to the database carriers and certain other persons report electronic record upload. The manual upon request from a hiring operator. information ‘‘to the Administrator method will be accessed via the PRD The FAA considered comments promptly for entry into the database’’ website. The reporting entity will be regarding the number of pilots who will with regard to any individual used as a presented with a form to complete after transition from corporate flight pilot in their operations, the PRD Act selecting the pilot and what type of departments, air tour operations, or leaves the FAA discretion to determine record is to be entered. The second PAO (‘‘PAC operators’’) to employment the means by which the information is method of loading records will be via an with a reviewing entity, and determined to be reported to the FAA for inclusion electronic transfer using a data format that many pilots will not make that in the PRD. The FAA further such as XML. The FAA originally transition or not change employers acknowledged in the NPRM that considered allowing a large text block to during the course of their careers. The requiring summaries rather than records be uploaded for historical records in the FAA recognizes that many pilots view differed from the current process under interest of expediting data upload. employment with the PAC operators as PRIA, stating that unlike the current However, after additional consideration, a career destination, not a gateway to process under PRIA, the proposed such a block would make the record far service with a reviewing entity. requirements ensure the standardized less useful to a reviewing entity. If the PAC operators may upload records for collection of and access to safety data information cannot be properly pilots they employ upon request instead regarding disciplinary actions by clearly categorized, identified, and read by a of reporting all records automatically. defining the type of event, the type of person to understand the salient facts of The request mechanism will be built disciplinary action, timeframes for data the record, there is diminished value for into the PRD as an automatic function. entry, and specific data that must be providing the record to the PRD. A This upload-upon-request framework is reported to the PRD for evaluation by a reporting entity may use either or both subject to three exceptions. First, future employer. As discussed in the methods, as long as the entity does not reporting upon request is not applicable NPRM, the FAA’s role concerning PRIA load the same record via both methods. for air tour operators’ drug and alcohol and PRD are vastly different. The The manual method will be available records subject to 14 CFR part 120. provisions of PRIA were self- for use when the requirement to enter Those records are subject to the implementing and the FAA’s role in the records becomes effective. This will reporting timeline for that section and PRIA process limited. The FAA did not allow reporting entities to begin must be reported contemporaneous with develop implementing regulations for entering records pursuant to the the receipt of each such record. Second, PRIA. The PRIA process generally schedule described in the regulation. PAC operators must report separation involved only three parties for industry Shortly after the final rule is published, from employment records which reflect records: The potential employer, the the FAA will begin finalizing the termination of the pilot’s employment, past employer, and the pilot-applicant. electronic record reporting format and either due to pilot performance or due In contrast, the PRD Act requires the keep industry informed of those efforts. to professional disqualification, to the Administrator to promulgate regulations The FAA expects to develop a format database within 30 days of record to establish an electronic pilot records that will accommodate the most creation. Third, PAC operators must database containing records from the efficient industry adoption. As the PRD report disciplinary action records to the FAA and records maintained by air system matures and recordkeeping database where the outcome is a carriers and other operators that employ systems advance, electronic transfer suspension from piloting an aircraft for pilots. may become the primary method of any amount of time. Limiting the data elements available loading records into the PRD for many The FAA understands that different to hiring employers is critical because reporting entities. Detailed instructions employers have different disciplinary

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31031

programs and the same action may be entities continue to report records they Commenters also sought clarification on referred to with different terminology. would have furnished in accordance the proposal to include all negative and The threshold consideration for with a PRIA request to the PRD upon non-negative return-to-duty test results determining whether an operator must receipt of that request. This provision in the PRD, as commenters read the text report a disciplinary action record upon addresses any gap that would occur for as excluding this requirement. Some creation of the record is whether the records held by an operator complying commenters remarked that the inclusion pilot was no longer permitted for any with § 111.215(b) and reporting records of negative return-to-duty test results period of time to pilot an aircraft during on request. That group of operators is has little value for an operator’s hiring flight operations. The FAA considers the same as those not required to report determination. Some commenters stated such separation from employment and historical records. There are the drug and alcohol testing regulations disciplinary actions as among the most approximately three years of records do not require an employer to maintain significant events for a reviewing entity that such operators would have negative return-to-duty tests for longer to consider when determining whether continued to provide under PRIA but for than one year. to employ a pilot. Therefore, the burden its sunset. This provision requires that Commenters requested clarification imposed by requiring PAC operators to those operators upload those records to on the regulatory references to report a certain record upon receipt or the PRD in the event a request is recordkeeping requirements in this creation of the record will ensure received. section, stating that some were specific reviewing entities have the most For records required to be reported to requirements of the MRO rather than important records regardless of whether contemporaneously under § 111.215(a), the employer. One commenter asked a pilot, in violation of the regulation, both disciplinary action records and whether the retention periods require omits operators from his or her list of separation from employment records expunging the records maintained in the previous employers. must be reported within 30 days of the PRD in accordance with 14 CFR part Aside from the three exceptions date the record would be considered 120, and if so, how to do this. discussed, this rule requires the ‘‘final’’ by the operator as noted in A4A added that the FAA already has reporting of any remaining records held § 111.230 and 111.235, which contain measures to prevent an air carrier from by a PAC operator only upon request the requirements for reporting such hiring an individual with drug or from a hiring employer. To ensure no records. alcohol violations, and that providing gap exists in pilot employment history, this information would be duplicative of 5. Drug and Alcohol Testing Records— the FAA revises § 111.310 to require FAA records that already show such Section 111.220 pilots to update their employment violations. Specifically, A4A referenced history dating back five years at the time As proposed in the NPRM, operators the requirement (under 14 CFR part 120) of granting consent to the operator. that must comply with 14 CFR part 120 to report certain drug and alcohol Under § 111.105, the hiring employer are required to report certain records violations to the Federal Air Surgeon must compare this history against the concerning drug testing and alcohol and the potential for resulting certificate available records; if the database misuse to the PRD. Operators must actions. A4A also stated that a positive indicates that further records are report all drug test results verified return-to-duty test would permanently available, the hiring operator will be positive by a Medical Review Officer disqualify a pilot from holding an FAA able to generate a request through the (MRO), any alcohol test result with a pilot certificate, while a pilot that is PRD to the prior or current employer for confirmed breath alcohol concentration already performing pilot functions for upload. If a request is sent to a pilot’s of 0.04 or greater, any refusal to submit another air carrier would already have former employer and that former to drug or alcohol testing, any record been subject to the return-to-duty employer has no further records about pertaining to an occurrence of on-duty requirement and received a negative an individual pilot, the former employer alcohol use, pre-duty alcohol use, or return-to-duty test, so those negative should report that no further records are alcohol use following an accident, all outcomes would already be known to an available. The FAA envisions that even return-to-duty drug and alcohol test operator. if no other records exist for an results, and all follow-up drug and ii. FAA Response individual pilot (because the operator alcohol test results. This rule adopts the did not keep any training records, as requirement to report such records to In the NPRM, the FAA included the discussed in Section V.C or because the the PRD, as proposed; however, the requirement to report to the PRD pilot was not ever subject to FAA has updated some language within substituted or adulterated drug test disciplinary action) a separation from this section for clarity. results with verified positive drug test employment date might still exist for results. To harmonize the final rule with i. Comments Received that pilot. If the separation from 49 CFR 40.191(b), the FAA corrects this employment record was the result of a The FAA received comments on the reference by including these results in termination, the record would already proposed requirement to report drug the reporting requirement of be uploaded contemporaneously in the and alcohol testing records to the PRD § 111.220(a)(1)(ii) as refusals to submit PRD; however, if the separation was not from NTSB, Ameristar, RAA, NATA, to testing. the result of a termination, a last-in-time and A4A. The FAA proposed to require date should still be entered into the PRD While commenters expressed support operators to report all return-to-duty upon request, in order to populate the for the proposed inclusion of records and follow-up test results to the PRD, as database with information about a regarding a pilot’s drug and alcohol the review of return-to-duty and follow- pilot’s employment history. violation history in the PRD, some up test results are critical to an PAC operators are also required to commenters requested clarification on operator’s hiring decision. The FAA maintain any records reserved for which records they must report. For believes excluding these tests from PRD reporting upon request for five years or example, commenters asked whether would provide an incomplete picture of until otherwise reported to the PRD to they must report non-DOT testing a pilot’s drug and alcohol history to ensure they are available for review by records and whether they must report employers making a hiring decision a hiring employer. This section includes all negative and non-negative testing about a known violator. Return-to-duty a requirement that these operators and records for all types of tests. and follow-up tests are directly related

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 31032 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

to an individual’s rehabilitation process, employer has the information, such as return-to-duty process, but there is no and as described in the NPRM, alcohol test results and in refusal certificate action detected. In response including these records will allow a determinations without a test result. to the statement regarding permanent hiring employer to see more specifically The process required by part 40 for an disqualification, the FAA asserts that where an individual is in their employer to obtain records covered by specific qualifications must be met to treatment and return-to-duty process. that part will still exist, and is in trigger the permanent disqualification This information is critical for an addition to the records available in the provisions under §§ 120.111(e) and operator’s hiring decision, as a pilot PRD. If an operator discovers a drug or 120.221(b). A verified positive return-to- cannot perform flight crewmember alcohol violation record in an airman’s duty test will not trigger these duties for an operator under part 121, PAR and decides to hire the airman, the provisions automatically. part 135, or § 91.147 until the return-to- operator must obtain information that duty process is complete.46 the airman has subsequently complied 6. Training, Qualification, and All pilot records (including with the return-to-duty requirements of Proficiency Records—Section 111.225 documentation of return-to-duty testing) 49 CFR part 40, subpart O, in In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to must be maintained for at least 5 years accordance with 49 CFR 40.25(e). In require all operators complying with under 49 CFR 40.333(a)(1) and 49 U.S.C. accordance with the drug and alcohol subpart C of part 111 to provide 44703(h)(4). Therefore, operators will testing regulations, a hiring employer training, qualification, and proficiency have maintained these records for at cannot hire an airman to perform a records to the PRD. Under the proposed least that amount of time. The PRD Act safety-sensitive function if the employer rule, employers would enter records also specifically requires inclusion of is aware that the individual has violated maintained in accordance with records kept under PRIA as of the date the testing regulations and cannot established FAA regulations related to of enactment of the statute, which obtain documentation that the pilot training, qualifications, and would include drug and alcohol testing individual has met the return-to-duty proficiency events. In addition, the FAA records from that time period as well. requirements of part 40, subpart O or proposed to require employers to enter This rule contains revised regulatory part 120. records demonstrating an individual’s text to note the requirement to report all Because the PRD will not provide a compliance with FAA or employer- negative and non-negative drug and hiring operator with return-to-duty required ‘‘training, checking, testing, alcohol return-to-duty test results to the documentation or actual test results, the currency, proficiency, or other events PRD. operator must obtain documentation of related to pilot performance’’ that may In the NPRM, the FAA proposed that the airman’s successful completion of be kept by covered employers. records related to on-duty use, pre-duty the DOT return-to-duty requirements As proposed in § 111.220(c), the use, and use following an accident (including initial and follow-up reports minimum data required to be reported would be included in a pilot’s from the Substance Abuse Professional by all populations included the date of disciplinary action record in the PRD. (SAP), the follow-up testing plan, and the event, aircraft type, duty position The NPRM also proposed to require an results for any return-to-duty and (PIC or SIC), training program approval employer to enter a detailed summary of follow-up tests). The airman must part and subpart, the crewmember the violation. Upon further provide the records that the airman is training or qualification curriculum and consideration, the FAA determined authorized to have, or the operator must category as reflected in the FAA- records of on-duty use, pre-duty use, obtain the airman’s specific release of approved or employer-mandated and use following an accident must be information consent to the former training program, the result of the action included in the pilot’s drug and alcohol employer where the violation occurred, (satisfactory or unsatisfactory), and history as alcohol misuse violations as required by 49 CFR 40.321 and limited comments from a check pilot, if under part 120 of this chapter instead of formerly under the PRIA. AC 120–68J appropriate.48 The FAA also proposed the pilot’s disciplinary action record. includes a sample release form (FAA to exclude certain records from the This will ensure an accurate display of Form 8060–12) to aid a hiring operator reporting requirements. Specifically, a pilot’s drug and alcohol history and with requesting an airman’s drug and under the proposal, the PRD would not will allow a hiring employer to alcohol records from the airman’s include records related to flight time, determine whether a pilot is previous employer(s). duty time, and rest time; records professionally qualified to perform Lastly, in response to A4A’s comment demonstrating compliance with flight crewmember duties. When that the FAA already has measures to physical examination requirements or entering alcohol misuse violations that prevent a reviewing entity from hiring any other protected medical records; an individual with a drug or alcohol do not include a test result in the PRD, records documenting aeronautical violation, the PRD Act requires the FAA the employer will need to input the experience; and records identified in to include drug and alcohol records in report type and date of occurrence. § 111.245, the provision that identifies the PRD as records maintained by the Because a hiring employer that intends certain voluntarily-submitted safety reporting entity.47 The FAA does not to hire an airman must obtain records of program records. the occurrence from the previous have discretion to adjust the NBAA, ALPA, CAPA, A4A, RAA, employer in accordance with part 40, no requirement. Further, drug and alcohol CAA, the Families of Continental Flight further explanation of the violation is violation reports sent to the Federal Air 3407, Cummins, Inc., Ameristar, Atlas necessary in the PRD. Surgeon are not indefinitely available to Air, and many individuals commented This rule also adds regulatory the FAA. For example, if the FAA does on the proposed requirement to report citations as they relate to drug and not proceed with enforcement action, training, qualification, and proficiency alcohol recordkeeping requirements, the record is expunged and is no longer records. Most of these comments ensuring the rule references 14 CFR part part of the individual’s violation history addressed the proposed requirement to 120 and 49 CFR part 40 for a regulated in the FAA’s enforcement system (EIS). include check pilot comments from employer and MRO, where appropriate. The violation still stands and the For example, in many cases, only the individual still needs to go through the 48 The FAA uses the term ‘‘check pilot’’ throughout part 111 and this preamble to refer also 46 See 49 CFR part 40, subpart O. 47 49 U.S.C. 44703(i)(2)(B)(i)(II)–(III). to the duties and responsibilities of a check airman.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31033

training events, to which some comments in the PRD. As discussed in guidance, such as AC 120–68J and the commenters objected. Commenters also the NPRM, the FAA is required by PRD record entry functionality itself, to addressed the reporting of records statute 50 to include in the PRD records designate which records may include related to recurrent training, continuing pertaining to ‘‘the training, check pilot comments when entered qualification training under an qualifications, proficiency, or into the PRD. Advanced Qualification Program (AQP), professional competence of the Additionally, to the extent the reporting of aeronautical experience individual, including comments and commenters have raised concerns about records, the lack of standardization in evaluations made by a check airman.’’ liability, this rule does not extend the training records, and other issues Because the PRD is intended to improve statutory liability protection to cover related to the reporting of training the information sharing that occurs inclusion of check pilot comments records. under PRIA, the FAA is careful not to because this liability protection is reduce the benefits provided and already provided via a specific i. Comments Received Regarding instead to improve upon the PRIA provision in the PRD Act itself. Inclusion of Check Pilot Comments system. Under PRIA, training, iii. Comments Received Regarding NBAA, ALPA, CAPA, RAA, CAE, qualification, and proficiency records Inclusion of AQP Validation Events Cummins, Inc., and several individual are provided wholesale to requesting commenters recommended that the FAA operators. The FAA does not expect The NTSB, A4A, RAA, CAA, and the remove the proposed requirement to employers would redact portions of the Families of Continental Flight 3407 report check pilot comments from particular records and provide the sought clarification on which records training events.49 These commenters records in their entirety to the requester. from training programs approved in contended that requiring the reporting Thus, under PRIA, hiring operators are accordance with an AQP must be of check pilot comments would have a able to see check pilots’ comments in reported to the PRD. chilling effect on training and safety. the record. These comments will The NTSB asserted that the Draft PRD 51 Commenters also noted the subjective provide a hiring operator information AC states that operators using a nature of such comments and that helps in understanding the salient training program approved in highlighted the effect such comments details of a qualification or proficiency accordance with an AQP would be could have on a pilot’s career. event. The FAA removed ‘‘subpart K’’ required to enter into the PRD specific Ameristar suggested the FAA publish from § 111.225 as adopted because the information about a pilot’s qualification an advisory circular or appendix to the FAA expects that any comments by the items completed through the AQP, but rule to detail how instructors and check person administering a proficiency the language in the NPRM is not clear airman should write comments check conducted under § 61.58 will also in this regard. The NTSB said the FAA regarding a pilot’s performance to be reported to the PRD to the extent an should ensure the final rule contains achieve objectivity. Ameristar provided operator is keeping records related to language that specifies which AQP examples of such comments. that section. This approach is consistent items, including but not limited to those Noting that unflattering check or with the reporting required for other referenced in the Draft PRD AC, must be instructor pilot comments may cost specified proficiency events reported to the PRD. The NTSB also said pilots future job opportunities and leave administered by check pilots or it does not support the proposal to check pilots or their employers open to evaluators such as for parts 121, 135, or exclude AQP ‘‘validation events’’ from liability, NBAA said the statement of 125. If the check required by § 61.58 is the PRD reporting requirement, stating non-liability should specifically protect unsatisfactory, the tasks or maneuvers that it recognizes that ‘‘many validation the check or instructor pilot against not completed satisfactorily will also be events . . . are used to improve and add civil, administrative, and criminal entered if maintained by the covered quality to the training program,’’ but claims. NATA also requested employer. several AQP validation events contain clarification on the liability protections Some commenters suggested the FAA evaluation elements that assess an for current and past employers entering provide guidance regarding how the individual’s performance and required data into the PRD, not just new check pilots should draft comments. proficiency (using a rating or score) and employers. The FAA has not determined that must be administered by an evaluator. A4A recommended the FAA clarify comments from check pilots are The NTSB opined that the inclusion of that comments on pilot performance generally problematic or that additional the records of such events in the PRD is should only be entered into the PRD industry guidance is needed. Check consistent with the overall intent of the when made by a check pilot during pilots have entered comments as needed NPRM. The NTSB recommended that evaluation events or during validation for years and have been guided by their the FAA ensure that the final rule events in AQP continuing qualification approved training programs regarding requires PRD reporting for AQP (CQ). what is appropriate to enter as a evaluation elements that assess an comment in a record. The requirement individual’s performance and ii. FAA Response to report comments into the PRD does proficiency, including but not limited to The FAA revised parts of this section not alter existing processes that maneuver validations (MV), line for clarity, as set forth in the discussion operators use when creating the original operational evaluations (LOE), and line that follows, and re-numbered this record. checks. The Families of Continental section, which the NPRM had proposed A commenter expressed concern Flight 3407 concurred with the NTSB’s to designate as § 111.220. about inclusion of comments from comment, noted that it is critical to The FAA is mindful of all comments instructors in the PRD. As described in include AQP ‘‘validation events’’ that received on the inclusion of check pilot the NPRM, the PRD will not include assess an individual’s performance and instructor comments but will instead 49 For purposes of this rule and as reflected in the collect records relating to the 51 The draft PRD AC published along with the database, the FAA is using the term ‘‘training completion of training curricula. The NPRM on March 30, 2020, and is available in the event’’ broadly to include training activity, docket at https://www.regulations.gov/ checking and evaluation activities, and operating FAA provides substantial supporting document?D=FAA-2020-0246-0006. The final PRD experience under the supervision of a check airman AC 120–68J will be available in the rulemaking or evaluator. 50 49 U.S.C. 44703(i)(2)(B)(ii)(I). docket.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 31034 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

proficiency to ensure that the overall and not necessarily the proficiency of may require updates over time, within safety intent of the PRD is met. The the pilot. the requirements specified by § 111.225. commenter urged the FAA to close these The FAA will identify in the AC the iv. FAA Response AQP-related loopholes as it finalizes the record elements each employer will proposed rule. The FAA seeks to ensure that records enter based on the regulatory A4A noted the FAA addressed entered into the PRD based on AQP requirement as compared to various reasons not to include AQP validations provide a hiring operator with the same training programs and curricula. and validation comments in both the benefit as records reported under non- Commenters expressed both support preamble (at 85 FR 17680) and the Draft AQP programs. Overall, AQP validation for and opposition to including PRD AC (at paragraph 10.1.2.5). A4A events that are conducted by an comments related to AQP validation asserted those negative effects are evaluator involve an assessment of a events. Some AQP validation events limited to qualification courses. A4A pilot’s proficiency and should be made that occur in various curricula are used went on to say the industry believes available to a hiring operator. While to ensure a pilot has completed a there is value in including CQ AQP validation events provide valuable knowledge or skill block before validations and comments in the PRD. feedback regarding the effectiveness of beginning the next. However, some AQP CAA, A4A, and RAA sought the training program, they are also validation events provide a more clarification on how continuing designed to ensure the pilot holistic review of a pilot’s proficiency qualification training under AQP should demonstrates an appropriate level of than other events. The FAA would be accounted for in the PRD. The proficiency. As such, these AQP consider the latter AQP validation validation activities constitute commenters noted that many AQPs events conducted by evaluators, such as proficiency events under the language have a cycle of reviewing all required MVs and LOEs, to be proficiency events; in § 111.225(a), and the records task elements in 24-month or 36-month as a result, these AQP validation events increments, during which pilots will (including evaluator comments) could have evaluator comments entered attend several simulator training associated with these AQP validation in the original record. These comments sessions that conclude in either an MV activities must be included in the will offer the same benefit to a or LOE. The commenters asked FAA to database. reviewing entity as conventional check clarify whether continuing qualification After considering the comments pilot comments. MV under subpart Y and the training received, the FAA determined that session associated with revision of the requirements concerning As a result, the final rule includes § 121.441(a)(1)(ii)(B) ‘‘simulator course records of AQP validation events is references to ‘‘evaluators’’—a term training’’ should be reported to the PRD. appropriate. Some validation events, generally used in AQP—in addition to Commenters recommended the FAA such as procedures validation (PV) ‘‘check pilots,’’ a term generally used in name the events that must be uploaded conducted by an instructor in a subparts N and O of part 121 as well as to the PRD. A4A and RAA listed the qualification curriculum, do not in part 135. Some events reported to the events they believe should be uploaded constitute a proficiency event. PRD would be subject to evaluation by to the PRD. For subpart Y of part 121 Therefore, such validation events will a person other than a check pilot. These (Advanced Qualification Program), the not be reported individually in the comments will be as relevant to the commenters stated that the following database, but rather, will be reflected in proficiency of a pilot as those comments should be uploaded: (1) All LOEs the general reporting requirement made by check airmen under traditional associated with an initial, transition, indicating the pilot has completed the training programs. The PRD Act does upgrade, differences or a continuing qualification curriculum. However, as not limit the inclusion of comments qualification training course; and (2) all noted, a PV event differs from those only concerning the technical MVs associated with a continuing events conducted by AQP evaluators, qualifications of a check pilot, and the qualification course. For subparts N such as an MV under a continuing FAA finds the inclusion of these (Training Program) and O (Crewmember qualification curriculum, which could comments consistent with the intent of Qualifications) of part 121, the provide a hiring operator with very the statute. commenters stated that the following meaningful information regarding an v. Comments Regarding Aeronautical should be uploaded: (1) All proficiency assessment of the pilot’s proficiency. Experience checks for both initial training and This is particularly true in many CQ recurrent training; and (2) all simulator curricula. Many operators utilizing AQP NBAA and two individuals courses of training under subpart O. The programs will use a rotating schedule commented on language in both the commenters said that, if the FAA does where the pilots complete an MV in one draft AC and the NPRM requiring not believe this level of detail is cycle and then an LOE in the next. reporting of a pilot’s aeronautical appropriate for the rule, it should Although they constitute two different experience, flight time, and flight develop either an AC or Order to types of events, they are both maneuvers performed to maintain provide standardization. evaluations of pilot proficiency and thus privileges of their certificate. The In contrast, ALPA said the FAA’s must be reported to the PRD with the individual commenter noted proposed exclusion of validation events evaluator’s comments. inconsistent statements between (in an AQP) is an important safeguard AC120–68J accompanying this rule proposed § 111.220(b)(3), which says no of the efficacy of highly successful will specify exactly which AQP person may report records documenting training programs and should be clearly validation events constitute aeronautical experience, and stated in the regulations. Commenters ‘‘proficiency events’’ under § 111.225(a) § 111.220(a)(2), which requires believed that reporting validation events and thus must be reported to the PRD. operators to report records related to to the PRD would stifle free and open The AC will also describe which other currency and proficiency. The feedback from those administering the AQP related records must be included, commenters noted these reporting validation event. They also indicated which would generally be completion of requirements will result in operators that validation events are intended to training events. The exact training needing to log every flight hour, provide feedback regarding the record elements expected to be reported instrument approach, and landing in the effectiveness of the training program vary from employer to employer and PRD. NBAA asked the FAA to remove

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31035

reporting requirements related to decipher, an individual commenter the same format and manner with the § 61.57. suggested the FAA create an industry same associated data fields such as the Another individual commenter standard reporting format for the PRD. type of training program, the date of the expressed confusion over what it The commenter said the PRD should be check, and the results of the check. interpreted as a proposal not to require easily understandable by anyone When these records are displayed to a the reporting of aeronautical experience. accessing it and that, without reviewing entity in an organized report, The commenter argued that the entire standardization, it could be difficult to the reviewing entity can digest the purpose of the proposed rule is to discern which type of training event critical facts and details more quickly ensure that appropriate aeronautical occurred and what was covered in each and easily than when a reviewing entity experience exists when hiring pilots. event. A4A recommended that the FAA must review multiple reports in various vi. FAA Response work with carriers to discuss how formats produced by each previous events reported from one carrier can be employer. Regarding the exclusion of interpreted by other carriers. CAA The FAA revised AC 120–68J to refine ‘‘aeronautical experience’’ in the recommended the FAA provide the data elements that the FAA expects reporting requirements proposed in the additional guidance material to ensure to see reported in the PRD in order to NPRM, the FAA recognizes that standardization of all training records. comply with the regulatory requirement aeronautical experience, which is CAA, A4A, and RAA recommended set forth in § 111.225. Each training defined only in part 61, is used to that the FAA create a PRD working record will include information describe the information that pilots group to help standardize the form and concerning the type of training program must log to demonstrate compliance manner of the records to be recorded in and curriculum the operator uses. The with the requirements of part 61. As the PRD. PRD will aid in identifying the training defined in § 61.1, aeronautical The General Aviation Manufacturers elements most crucial to identifying experience means ‘‘pilot time [52] Association (GAMA) commented that patterns in pilot performance, but the obtained in an aircraft, flight simulator, the FAA’s attempt to create a statistical FAA notes that the purpose of the PRD or flight training device for meeting the database disregards the fact that the PRD is to share information with reviewing appropriate training and flight time will be populated with statistically entities, not develop training elements. requirements for an airman certificate, unrelated information. rating, flight review, or recency of flight Pointing to paragraph 10.1.1.1.2 of ix. Comments Regarding the experience requirements’’ of part 61. Draft AC 111, ALPA said it agrees with Requirement for Different Types of The FAA acknowledges that using the the FAA’s proposed use of a Operators To Enter Training Records in term ‘‘aeronautical experience’’ in part ‘‘Standardized Training Record Input’’ the PRD 111 could be confusing. with a requirement to identify Some commenters, including Koch In the final rule, the FAA replaces consistently each ‘‘Action/Event,’’ in Industries (Koch), which employs more ‘‘aeronautical experience’’ in the reference to the primary training than 30 pilots who hold type ratings exclusion with ‘‘recent flight categories from the specific curriculum under 14 CFR 61.31(a), objected to the experience.’’ Although recent flight segments in the carrier’s FAA-approved requirement to report training and experience is a ‘‘qualification’’ 53 training program. checking records. Koch asserted the requirement like training and checking FAA already maintains the records or viii. FAA Response events, the final rule excludes these that the records are available from requirements from the reporting Some variation might exist in training centers. RAA opposed the requirements in part 111. The FAA interpreting various operators’ training proposed requirement to include notes that the regulations generally events. This is a particularly notable employer-required training records in identify this type of event in section challenge for record-sharing under the database, saying it will add nothing headings. For example, § 135.247 sets PRIA, concerning the original employer to comparative data or the standard forth recent experience requirements record. As a result, the FAA identified reached by the individual, as the including takeoffs and landings that standardized data elements for entries. training may be voluntary and will vary must be performed within a certain Using a standardized input will provide widely from carrier to carrier. period of time before conducting an a consistent format as part of the PRD NASA and JPATS noted an FAA pilot operation. Under § 111.225(b), these airman report. Providing the uniform certificate is not a requirement to records are excluded from the reporting report, regardless of the format used by operate government aircraft at the requirements but remain recordkeeping a reporting entity, will allow reviewing discretion of the Federal agency, and requirements for operators. entities to interpret the information that their qualification, requalification, accurately and efficiently. For example, vii. Comments Regarding the Lack of currency, and check flight requirements when a reporting entity reports a Standardization in Training Records do not align with part 61 currency proficiency check, it will select the requirements. These commenters stated Several commenters addressed the regulatory basis for the check, such as the proposed requirements do not lack of industry standards in training a Part 121 subparts N and O based benefit the government and appear only records. Noting that training data is curriculum, from a drop down list. This to benefit industry. JPATS also noted it currently stored in company-specific selection will determine which data does not have the resources to maintain formats that can be challenging to entry options are available based on the these records, that the records are not training or checking event. The only relevant to JPATS operations, and that 52 ‘‘Pilot time’’ is defined in § 61.1 and includes opportunity for reporting entity to the requirement would be burdensome. time in which a person serves as a required pilot flightcrew member and time giving and receiving provide text would be in the context of The Small UAV Coalition said that, flight training in an aircraft, full flight simulator, check pilot or evaluator comments. because unmanned aircraft systems flight training device, or aviation training device. Because the selection of event type is (UAS) are different from the aircraft 53 The FAA views qualification requirements primarily comprised of predefined used in traditional air carriage, the broadly as any certificate, rating, training, checking, testing and experience required to be qualified or items, every reporting entity who safety risks that the PRD seeks to maintain qualification for a position (e.g. pilot in wishes to record, for example, a line mitigate do not necessitate requiring command) in a particular operation (e.g. part 121). check, will be reporting line checks in UAS air carriers to produce or review

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 31036 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

training and proficiency records. these pilot records from the reporting many operators complete training Moreover, the commenter continued, requirements. Moreover, the PRD Act outside an approved training program. given the significant difference between does not expressly exclude such The FAA does not intend the PRD to different types of UAS, the ability to operations. create additional record keeping compare training and performance With respect to comments concerned requirements. Instead, this rule makes records diminishes the relevance of that about the inclusion of training records some records that a reporting entity review. Accordingly, the Small UAV for certain part 91 operators, the FAA already maintains available in a central Coalition recommended that the FAA stated in the NPRM: database for hiring employers. AC 120– revise the regulatory text to state the The FAA recognizes that commercial air 68J describes in detail the possible requirement ‘‘does not apply to air tour operators, corporate flight departments, record elements for entry in the PRD. carriers and other operators operating and entities conducting public aircraft The PRD Act does not apply to part only autonomous unmanned aircraft operations are not required to maintain an 142 training centers or any other entity systems.’’ The Coalition also requested approved pilot training program or maintain that has not employed the pilot, as the FAA acknowledge in the preamble records concerning employer-mandated pilot discussed further in Section V.A.1. of this rule that certain requirements for training and qualification events. However, all pilots must record certain events in their xi. Other Comments Regarding Training submission of documentation of pilot logbooks to maintain their currency Records compliance with employer-required with an FAA pilot certificate pursuant to training, checking, testing, etc., do not § 61.57. While these events are required to be Ameristar and ALPA commented on apply to air carriers or other operators recorded by pilots in their logbooks, the FAA the proposed reporting elements for using only autonomous UAS. expects that operators employing pilots training records. Ameristar An individual commenter asked maintain similar pilot training and currency recommended that the FAA rewrite the whether training providers would records demonstrating compliance with part paragraph to read: ‘‘Result of an event supply information to the PRD directly. 61 to document that their pilots are trained, as satisfactory or unsatisfactory,’’ and qualified and current for operational safety delete the rest of the paragraph, and Another individual commenter and regulatory compliance purposes. recommended that the FAA require part amend proposed § 111.220(c)(7) to 142 training centers to provide training The FAA reiterates in this final rule that require comments explaining a result records to the database directly, thereby the NPRM did not propose to impose a that is unsatisfactory. ALPA said it alleviating the administrative burden on new system of recordkeeping for agrees with the proposed requirement in part 91 operators. Another commenter training records not already kept by § 111.220(c)(6) for every ‘‘Result of the said flight training providers, who commercial air tour operators, corporate event’’ to be reported as either support insurance industry flight departments, and entities ‘‘satisfactory’’ or ‘‘unsatisfactory’’ requirements (such as FlightSafety, conducting public aircraft operations. because the approach promotes uniform SimCom, LOFT, etc.) and maintain As stated above, the FAA relied on and objective reports. ALPA said it training records under § 61.58 for information indicating that employers opposes the proposed requirement to purposes of part 142 training centers, falling within this grouping (PAC include a brief comment explaining the should report any below-standard operators) may keep training records of basis for any ‘‘unsatisfactory’’ event. performance on initial or subsequent their own accord. If an operator keeps ALPA asserted this proposed type rating checks directly to the FAA. those records, the FAA proposed to requirement contradicts the language require those records be reported to the and intent of the PRD Act and is unwise x. FAA Response PRD. While the record may not provide as a matter of policy. To the extent that the commenters the same level of assurance that may Atlas Air also commented on the stated it is not appropriate to include accompany a required training record importance of ensuring awareness of a training or proficiency records of pilots from an approved training program, pilot who initiated but did not finish a engaged in small UAS operations, the these records play an important role in training program. The commenter noted FAA does not agree. Small UAS helping the reviewing entity make a the proposed rule requires reporting of operators subject to 14 CFR part 135 are comprehensive assessment of a pilot’s training segments that end already subject to recordkeeping proficiency. ‘‘Satisfactorily, Unsatisfactorily, requirements. The data elements Upon review of the comments Complete, Incomplete, Pass, or Fail,’’ provided in the AC will be broadly indicating that employers do not but it does not give direction as to the applicable to, and are appropriate for, generally keep records generated description of what an ‘‘Incomplete’’ is both manned and unmanned operations. exclusively under part 61, and in and how it should be described in the Consistent with all part 135 operations, consideration of the new method of free text areas of the PRD. The pilots serving in part 135 unmanned compliance for PAC operators to report commenter stated the air carrier must aircraft operations are trained under an training records upon request, the FAA provide the specific reason the training FAA-approved training program and are does not envision that this requirement was not completed as related to pilot subject to proficiency checks and line would be overly burdensome for PAC proficiency. Atlas Air stated the FAA checks. Although the operations might, operators. Accordingly, § 111.225 needs to provide guidelines about the in some ways, be different from manned requires that when a PAC operator specific information to be reported in aircraft, the pilots are trained and maintains training records, the operator the free text areas to resolve evaluated on areas universal to pilot must enter those records into the PRD inadequacies with the current PRIA performance, such as aeronautical upon receipt of a request in accordance system. CAA and RAA similarly decision-making, compliance with FAA with § 111.215(b). The reporting entity recommended the FAA require carriers regulations (including those related to should include any training records to report the reason a pilot did not airspace), and crew resource available to the extent those records are complete a training course. CAE also management. A pilot’s performance compliant with the requirements in questioned whether a pilot who, in during training and checking events can § 111.225. As discussed in the NPRM, training, shows consistent difficulty provide relevant information to the FAA believes there is value in with a task or area of operation over operators looking to employ a pilot; reporting of employer-specific training more than one training event yet therefore, no basis exists for excluding records, to the extent they exist, as ultimately passes each event

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31037

successfully will be trackable in this stress situation, and stated there should may indeed have these records, which system. be some adjustments available to are maintained by the pilot, but there Noting that the pilot involved in the account for such circumstances. will be many instances where operators Continental Flight 3407 accident had An individual commenter said will not have these records as the training issues that included three records maintained and reported for this burden of compliance is on the pilot. instances of additional training while a section need to be limited to those For training, proficiency, and first officer, Atlas Air and another events and training that occur while qualification records for all reporting commenter said it is unclear whether employed with the certificate holder or entities, this rule includes the items records of these types of additional operator. This commenter also said the required to be reported in accordance training will be available in the PRD. prohibition against reporting flight and with § 111.225(c)(7) to indicate the The commenter stated none of that duty time ‘‘is negative to safety and inclusion of specific detail about information would have been published allows for continued fraudulent activity unsatisfactory events, which includes in the PRD under the current proposal. in the aviation industry.’’ The incomplete events. Such inclusion will Ameristar asked the FAA to clarify commenter asserted that providing ensure the amount of information ‘‘subpart of the title’’ in proposed certificate holders and operators with provided to a reviewing entity is at least § 111.220(c)(4). Ameristar also said the ability to check stated experience as much as is provided under PRIA. proposed § 11.220(c)(4) and (5) appear against a trusted database and the pilot’s Where the result would be complete or to focus only on training but do not own logbook would increase safety and incomplete, events that are complete seem to include proficiency checks, line eliminate the possibility that flight time would be considered ‘‘satisfactory’’ and checks, or other checks. The commenter does not appear to match skill level. events that are incomplete would be suggested references to regulatory A4A and RAA asked the FAA to considered ‘‘unsatisfactory.’’ The form sections only, and not to a company’s clarify a record element, ‘‘Line for reporting these records will training program, which would be Operating Flight Time,’’ because it distinguish between incomplete events meaningless to a reviewing entity. appears that the FAA meant to use the and other unsatisfactory events. For Ameristar noted that training under part Line-Oriented Flight Training (LOFT), such records, a reporting entity would 121, Appendix E, may have well over as defined in AC 120–35D, instead of provide further detail about the specific 100 elements for which a satisfactory, Line Operating Flight Time. maneuvers or events that were unsatisfactory, or incomplete grade xii. FAA Response unsatisfactory or incomplete. AQP could be given to each element. The validation events conducted by commenter asked whether the FAA The FAA removed the reference to evaluators are an assessment of pilot intends records of all such events would ‘‘currency’’ in § 111.225(a)(2) as proficiency, and the comments of the be included, even if the pilot adopted. The FAA reevaluated the evaluator will be valuable to a reviewing satisfactorily completes the type rating language of the proposed regulation and entity. Such comments, including an or proficiency checks. If so, the confirms that it does not intend to indication of which events or commenter asserted, this would be collect currency records in this part. maneuvers were unsatisfactory or extremely burdensome for a reporting This revision is further supported by the incomplete, should also be included. entity and would not serve any purpose exclusion of recent flight experience 54 Ameristar asked if the FAA intended or enhance safety. Ameristar said it in § 111.225(b)(3). The FAA notes, for the PRD record to include each believes that indoctrination ground however, that operating experience maneuver or task included on a typical training is not relevant as it is not under the supervision of a check pilot proficiency record. The forms used for aircraft specific. or evaluator will be included in the proficiency checks include several items Two individual commenters PRD. These events are an assessment of which could be accomplished during recommended the FAA remove the pilot proficiency at a critical stage in a the checking event and normally, a reporting requirement for pilot currency pilot’s service for an operator. check pilot or evaluator indicates records. Commenting on the proposed Specific flight information normally whether an item is applicable, requirements to report other training found in a pilot’s logbook such as satisfactory, or unsatisfactory. The FAA and qualification events (as well as drug departure point, destination, and flight agrees that requiring every specific item, testing results), a commenter also time details will not be reported to the satisfactory or unsatisfactory, to be suggested that the final rule include PRD, as the PRD is not intended to be reported in the PRD record would be language to protect operators from a duplicate flight logbook. The FAA also overly burdensome. However, in the potential liability from a pilot taking determined it will not require reporting case of an unsatisfactory checking event, legal action against an operator for of items associated with §§ 61.56 (flight a reviewing entity needs to be able to reporting these factual items. review) and 61.57 (recent flight determine exactly what task or Cummins, Inc. suggested that the experience). The FAA understands that maneuver was unsatisfactory. To that length of time a pilot needs to complete pilots will often share the existence of end, as discussed in the previous training should not result in adverse these records with employers and that paragraph, the FAA will require implications or negative connotations, some employers may actually keep reporting entities to indicate which including impact on future career additional copies of the records. tasks or maneuvers were unsatisfactory options. Cummins stated the employer However, the pilot is under no or incomplete while not requiring could discriminate inadvertently based obligation to share these records with satisfactory items be listed in such on a disability, as a reasonable employers for their recordkeeping. detail. accommodation applied in some Commercial air tour operators, corporate The free text areas of the PRD will circumstances is allowing additional flight departments, and entities exist exclusively for comments related time to complete a test. Another conducting public aircraft operations to a checking event and for an commenter was concerned about the indication of events that are prospect of a pilot failing the check due 54 The FAA notes that the term ‘‘currency’’ refers unsatisfactory or incomplete, as to meeting the appropriate airman and medical to a temporary physical, emotional, or recency requirements specific to the operation or discussed previously. The FAA mental situation impacting the pilot’s activity. See 14 CFR 61.2(b). It includes recent flight considers incomplete events to be ability to perform satisfactorily in a high experience. unsatisfactory, as described above. The

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 31038 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

form of the record itself will distinguish indoctrination or upgrade curriculum. events to the PRD is not appropriate and between incomplete events from other Various checking events such as line that the PRD will instead accept unsatisfactory events, based on the checks and maneuvers validations when information regarding training curricula, event type. The record entry for those completed as part of a continuing but not the individual training sessions events will also include specific detail qualification curriculum will also be they include. indicating whether specific items were reported. Another example as reflected Lastly, the PRD does not collect flight unsatisfactory or incomplete, as in AC120–68J is that in most cases, the and duty records as this information is explained previously. FAA has removed the reporting element not particularly useful to a reviewing In response to the comments of ‘‘Upgrade ground training and entity. These records would also impose regarding second in command (first upgrade flight training.’’ Instead, only a a significant burden for reporting officer) training, as required by single record of the Upgrade training entities. A commenter opined that § 121.415(j), approved training programs curriculum is entered. AC120–68J also review of such records could help must provide training for pilots who includes certain specific training validate a pilot’s logbook records if the have been identified as having records such as extended envelope PRD recorded flight and duty records. performance deficiencies during training. The commenter suggested a reviewing training and checking and/or multiple The FAA agrees that a variety of entity could compare the flights shown failures during checking. For AQP circumstances could affect a pilot’s in the logbook against the flights shown programs, § 121.913(b)(4) specifies that ability to perform satisfactorily in a high in the PRD. This would only be true if a special tracking curriculum is required stress situation but does not agree that the PRD contained every flight record, when an air carrier has assigned a pilot the PRD should account for such a including records for flights performed to an augmented schedule of training, situation. Operating an aircraft often unrelated to a reporting entity. It is not checking, or both. Reporting entities causes high stress situations for a pilot, feasible to ensure every flight record must include records of remedial regardless of a temporary situation could be entered in these cases. If the training or special tracking when those affecting a pilot’s ability to perform, and PRD included some of the flight and records apply. These records, in a pilot completing or satisfactorily duty records but not others, the PRD addition to the other training, passing a check regardless of external would be inadequate for validating qualification, and proficiency records circumstances is a helpful indicator for against a pilot’s flight records. specified in AC 120–68J, will assist the a hiring employer. The FAA intends the Additionally, the PRD does not perform reviewing entity in making an PRD to prompt conversations; in this any data validation to compare records assessment of the pilot’s history. regard, a pilot is free to offer an entered against the various applicable Regarding comments about the clarity explanation to an employer regarding a regulations. For example, the PRD does in the regulatory text when the FAA check failure or a delay to complete not check that a pilot has performed a refers to training, checking, and training and encourages pilots and line check when required or that a pilot proficiency records in proposed potential employers to engage in a has successfully completed all required § 111.220(c)(4) and (5), approved robust dialogue during the hiring training. The PRD simply accepts the training programs are generally process. comprised of various curricula. Most As discussed extensively in the record and redisplays it to a reviewing curricula then include various training NPRM, all records entered by reporting entity. It is the responsibility of the (e.g. § 121.427 recurrent training) and entities, including training, reviewing entity to use the information checking events (e.g. § 121.441 qualification, and proficiency records, found in the PRD to help assess a pilot proficiency checks). The FAA must only be the records they have when making a hiring decision and of considered what curricula and related generated or are otherwise maintaining the reporting entity to report accurate events apply to the various training for their own operational needs. For information. programs and which of those would example, a reporting entity would not This section also includes reporting provide meaningful information to a report a record it received in response deadlines. In the NPRM, the FAA reviewing entity, the objective being to to a PRIA request. AC 120–68J states proposed including reporting timelines find the appropriate balance between that records received in response to a in a different section (proposed providing sufficient detail in the PRD PRIA request or records obtained from § 111.250). The FAA has reorganized against the burden that may be placed the PRD should be maintained as part 111 to move the expected timelines on reporting entities. Part of this review separate records and should not be for reporting into each record section. by the FAA considered that while most stored with the other pilot records. This The remainder of § 111.225 is adopted records for a particular curriculum or is to prevent those records obtained as proposed. training event are most often under PRIA or via the PRD from being 7. Final Disciplinary Action Records— satisfactory, that record becomes much entered again into the database or Section 111.230 more telling to the reviewing entity otherwise released to another operator when it is unsatisfactory. The FAA has in response to a PRIA request. As required by the PRD Act, the FAA included some records because, PAC operators that elect to keep proposed to include records of final although a rare occurrence, noting records from training centers or when disciplinary actions in the PRD. The unsatisfactory or incomplete provided by pilots would report those FAA proposed including written performance by a pilot is an important records to the PRD even though they did warnings, suspensions, and part of the assessment and must be not directly create those records as the terminations. The proposal excluded made available to a reviewing entity in records are serving that operator’s direct any disciplinary actions subsequently the interest of safety. As described in operational needs. overturned as a result of a settlement AC120–68J, the FAA believes only The FAA clarifies that, when it agreement, the official decision or order particular record elements provided in mistakenly used the term Line of any panel or individual with the PRD will be applicable to a pilot. Operating Flight Time in the NPRM, it authority to review employment For example, reporting entities will was referring to Line Oriented Flight disputes or by any court of law, or other enter various curriculum completions or Training (LOFT). The FAA has since mutual agreement between the withdrawals such as basic determined reporting individual LOFT employer and the pilot. The FAA also

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31039

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 31040 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

disciplinary action for purposes of part the decision of the person or panel with only permits entry of disciplinary action 111 without mentioning loss of pay or authority to adjudicate employment records that were not subsequently benefits because neither is necessary for disputes or a court of law that the overturned. As a result, internal an event to constitute a disciplinary underlying event did not occur or the resolution processes that precede the action. The FAA does not adopt any pilot was not at fault. An affirmative record being final must be complete employer-specific definitions of these finding is required; an agreement or prior to entry of that disciplinary action events. The FAA notes that insofar as an adjudication does not suffice to overturn in the PRD. The FAA acknowledges operator might internally consider an action where it merely leaves that, as the A4A noted, the PRD Act’s certain correctional records as non- unresolved whether the event occurred prohibition on recording actions prior to disciplinary, this final rule intends to or whether the pilot was at fault. If an the final record could create a ‘‘years- extend the same expectations regarding agreement does not overturn the long’’ gap between when misconduct record reporting to the PRD as was disciplinary action or separation from occurs and when it is reported in PRD. required under PRIA. Operators should employment action in accordance with The FAA concurs with A4A’s example continue a similar posture to reporting the terms set forth by the FAA in this that if a disciplinary action were disciplinary records to the PRD as was part, then the record of the disciplinary ‘‘effective’’ that it could also be final, the case under PRIA. It is incumbent on action must be in the PRD. The FAA depending on the operator’s the employer to include events falling fully expects employers to act in a determination that the action is not within the general description this rule manner consistent with the PRD Act by subject to pending dispute. The FAA provides, regardless of an employer’s not engaging in conduct that would does not have oversight over each internal definition. The FAA wipe the pilot’s record clean in order to operator or entity’s disciplinary system, emphasizes, however, that the pass him or her onto another and defers judgement to an operator to disciplinary action, as defined in this unsuspecting carrier, as that effectively decide when the action is a ‘‘final’’ rule, must be relevant to pilot would undermine the purpose of the record. Once an action is final, the performance. PRD. record must be entered within 30 days. The FAA has reviewed comments The FAA also updates this section Many commenters asked for suggesting the FAA require operators and § 111.235 to change ‘‘settlement clarification concerning the meaning of submit a correction within 5 days agreement’’ to ‘‘documented agreement’’ ‘‘any final disciplinary action record instead of 10 days for actions and remove ‘‘other mutual agreement.’’ pertaining to pilot performance’’ and overturned after they are submitted to The FAA reconsidered inclusion of this core duties and responsibilities of a the database. The timeframe the FAA provision and determined that the only pilot as they relate to sexual harassment, proposed in the NPRM is appropriate as acceptable agreement between a pilot discrimination, or other misconduct. it permits slightly more than one and an employer for purposes of Section V.A.3, Definitions, includes a working week in the event the determining that a disciplinary action description of the FAA’s considerations responsible person or other users are record or a separation from employment about which records pertain to pilot unavailable for five working days. This action is overturned would be a performance. rule adopts the requirement, as documented agreement. Whether the The FAA adopts § 111.230 with some proposed. agreement could be deemed a changes to the regulatory text, primarily Section 111.230(b)(1) and the PRD Act ‘‘settlement’’ agreement or some form of to incorporate text regarding reporting prohibit inclusion in the PRD of ‘‘other mutual’’ agreement is not timelines and to add the possibility for disciplinary action records where the germane; rather, the crux is that an certain operators to report records in disciplinary action is subsequently informal, undocumented agreement accordance with the process set forth in overturned. The threshold question in between a pilot and an employer would § 111.215. In the NPRM, the FAA determining whether a settlement not be sufficiently robust and verifiable proposed including reporting timelines agreement would cause a record to be to support removing or not reporting a in a different section (proposed removed or not reported is whether the record from the PRD. § 111.250) but after further evaluation, settlement agreement invalidates the The FAA will not require reporting of decided to instead include the expected disciplinary action that prompted the an aircraft type when entering final timelines for reporting in each record creation of the record. When disciplinary actions. The FAA agrees section. The new text also reflects the considering what agreements should with commenters that this data element new method for reporting for certain cause a record to be removed or not is not relevant as part of the PRD record. types of disciplinary action records, reported, the interest of aviation safety Cases might exist in which a reviewing explained previously in Section V.C.4 supports narrowing that class to those entity considers aircraft type; however, This rule will not require a reporting agreements arising from situations in as stated previously, the PRD is not entity to include a brief summary of an which parties agreed the action did not meant to be the final source of data event resulting in the corrective action. occur or was not the pilot’s fault. As when assessing a pilot during the hiring The FAA explained in the NPRM that referenced by A4A, the ‘‘legitimate process. The PRD will be a baseline or the PRD would include a text field settlement agreement’’ language quoted starting point for discussion between limited to 256 characters. The FAA in the NPRM further supports such a the pilot, reviewing entities, and reviewed comments on this topic and limitation.55 previous employers. concluded that 256 characters is not a Accordingly, the FAA updates the It is incumbent on the operator or significant amount of text in which to regulatory text for this section and for entity employing the pilot to determine explain such an event and that § 111.235 regarding separation from when an action is final. Once no further establishing a version on which the employment actions to reflect that the action is pending, this rule requires a employer and pilot agree may not be FAA only considers such actions to be record of the action. In determining that possible. Instead, consistent with the overturned for purposes of removing or the action is final, the operator or entity FAA’s view of the PRD as a source of not reporting the record where there is should conclude that the action is not basic information but not the dispositive a finding in either the agreement or in subject to any pending dispute, authority about a pilot’s history, the including any form of grievance database will include several options for 55 85 FR 17684. procedure or litigation. The PRD Act categorization and a place to enter the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31041

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 31042 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31043

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

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 31044 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

dispute resolution process. The FAA and statutory violation and of great dispute in the PRD indefinitely. The considered all comments received on concern to the FAA. Fraud or FAA expects a pilot would explain the the error correction and dispute intentional falsification of records nature of the disagreement to a hiring resolution process and made revisions reported to the PRD is prohibited under employer. to clarify certain aspects of the process. § 111.35. Pilots can report fraud or The FAA adopts the proposed The FAA received many comments on suspected intentional falsification of provisions with edits to consolidate the the NPRM requesting the FAA include records to the FAA for investigation. regulation. The FAA also revised the more detailed, prescriptive With respect to comments regarding reporting timeframe for record requirements concerning dispute the potential for employers to use the correction to occur within 10 days, resolution, and for the FAA to confirm PRD in a coercive manner, the FAA unless the reporting entity engages the it has a legal responsibility to confirm acknowledges that this is an inherent pilot in its dispute resolution process. data entered into the PRD complies with concern for any exchange of records If an operator disagrees with the the law. However, as noted in the NPRM about a person, and arguably exists request for correction of erroneous and in this final rule, the FAA is not under PRIA. The provision of information, it must engage the pilot required to verify the accuracy of data appropriate statutory and regulatory requesting the correction in its direct that reporting entities submit to the opportunity for pilots to note disputes dispute process. The operator must PRD. Operators are obligated by mitigates the potential for misuse. initiate investigation within 30 days, regulation and statute to enter accurate The FAA clarified in Section IV.C.7 and, within a reasonable amount of time information and are in the best possible and 8 that summaries of the separation in consideration of the proceedings to position to ensure that information is and disciplinary action records are not establish the accuracy of the record, accurate. The PRD Act does not require being required to be submitted under provide final disposition to the PRD. As the FAA to provide prescriptive this final rule. The FAA recommends mentioned previously, these capabilities requirements concerning disputes over that reviewing entities to communicate will all be built into the functionality of information or to oversee a dispute with the pilot and the reporting entity the PRD. resolution process. The FAA discusses about the exact nature of the the agency’s privacy obligations in the disciplinary or separation action record, 12. Duty To Report Historical Records to Privacy Impact Assessment for PRD, appropriately categorized. the PRD—Section 111.255 which will be posted on the docket for In response to ALPA’s comment Proposed § 111.420 incorporated the this final rule. Nonetheless, the FAA has regarding 14 CFR part 821, that part is statutory requirement for air carriers included requirements in this rule that codified in NTSB regulations and only and operators subject to PRIA to enter ensure pilots are afforded remedies if applies to certificate actions, rather than historical records into the PRD. For air they believe reporting entities have resolution of disputes concerning pilot carriers, the PRD Act requires that reported erroneous data. These records. The FAA cannot amend records dating from August 1, 2005, be requirements will limit misinformation another agency’s regulations. entered into the PRD. For other persons, or misuse of the PRD. Reporting entities A pilot dispute of an error or the Act requires records dating from must provide final disposition of record inaccuracy could be substantive or non- August 1, 2010 must be entered into the disputes to pilots who believe substantive in nature. Pilots may flag PRD. The FAA adopts this provision in information provided by the entity is the error or inaccuracy in the PRD the final rule in subpart C. inaccurate and to identify disputed directly, but the request for correction records within the PRD system. These goes through the PRD directly to the i. Comments Received processes fulfill the statutory reporting entity and would be resolved A4A recommended adopting a final requirement that individuals may make by that entity. No FAA approval is rule that does not include a historical written requests to the Administrator, necessary to correct the record. The documents requirement. A4A stated that who will provide individuals a dispute notation will remain in the PRD the obligation to provide ‘‘records that reasonable opportunity to submit only during the pendency of the the air carrier or other person is written comments to correct any dispute. The pilot may remove the maintaining on such date of enactment’’ inaccuracies contained in the record. dispute indicator if the pilot is satisfied under 49 U.S.C. 44703(i)(4) must be Finally, although the FAA does not that the record has been corrected. If a read in the context of the continued determine the accuracy of records reporting entity corrects an error in the obligations to comply with PRIA until provided by reporting entities, pilots PRD, only the new or corrected record the PRD final rule is in effect. A4A may submit requests for amendment will remain visible in the PRD. stated the FAA accepted this implicitly under the Privacy Act to the FAA if they A negotiated grievance procedure when it discussed Alternative 4 in the believe records created and maintained under a collective bargaining agreement Regulatory Flexibility Determination by the FAA in its databases, as or, where applicable, other section of the NPRM and did not argue described in 49 U.S.C. 44703(i)(2), are administrative grievance procedure that this alternative is contrary to law.56 inaccurate. would meet the requirements of A4A opposed requirements for As mentioned previously, a pilot § 111.255. The FAA does not set historical records of positive drug and always has the option of requesting requirements for the details of alcohol test results or of a refusal to take correction to a record with which the employers’ dispute resolution processes. the test. A4A suggested Congress may pilot disagrees. A reporting entity is Information correction requirements have intended to reference §§ 120.111(a) obligated to correct any information that under the PRD are complete once a and 120.219(a), which only require the employer confirms is inaccurate. If record has either been corrected or the certain records be retained. The a pilot can demonstrate to the reporting dispute process is complete. Because entity that the information it entered in the FAA does not have a basis to 56 Alternative 4 would require air carriers and the database is inaccurate, the reporting determine the accuracy of industry operators to report present and future pilot records entity must correct the information. Any records, if a reporting entity goes out of to the PRD, but continue to send historical records under PRIA until the PRD has 5 years of pilot abuse of the PRD by a reporting entity business and there is no trustee in records (by the start of 2025, the PRD would have through the misreporting of information bankruptcy to handle dispute resolution data from 2020 to 2024), at which point PRIA could about a pilot would be both a regulatory obligations, the record would remain in be discontinued. 85 FR 17701, March 30, 2020.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31045

commenter stated that neither of these case. If it were legally permissible, During the term of the deviation, the sections require the return-to-duty tests Alternative 4 might be a less costly operator must continue to retain for more than a year, and for this reason, solution than the final rule; however, historical records for reporting to the the FAA cannot expect all carriers to given the lack of available data, the FAA PRD and would be required to provide have retained more than one year of is not able to ascertain whether individual pilot records upon request, if these records. including historical records only in a a request arises. A4A commented that the proposed manner that mimics PRIA would The FAA intends to engage with the regulation captures significant historical achieve the purpose of the PRD Act. responsible persons for each subject records that are not relevant to the This final rule provides the lowest cost entity upon approval of a responsible hiring determination. The commenter legally-permissible solution. The FAA person’s application. The FAA is eager also stated that, because of the will include a summary of commenters’ to begin the implementation process. significant burden of providing concerns regarding the lookback period The FAA will work with responsible historical records and the nominal value for historical records in its next persons to facilitate setting up PRD user of doing so, the FAA should not subject triannual report to Congress, as set forth accounts and to begin mandatory FAA carriers to undisclosed or future in 49 U.S.C. 44703(i)(12). records review. Over the course of the intention to report additional historical Regarding drug and alcohol testing next year, the PRD program manager information. One commenter noted that records, Section IV.C.5. contains a will also work closely with responsible recordkeeping obligation of fractional response to A4A’s statement regarding persons from reporting entities to ensure operators in § 91.1027(a)(3) and (b) is to recordkeeping requirements for return- technical challenges are overcome along maintain records for a minimum of 12 to-duty test results. the path to compliance. AC 120–68J months. The FAA adopts this regulation as accompanies this final rule, and further CAPA noted the backfilling of past proposed, with some changes. guidance will continue to follow as the pilot records accurately could be time Paragraph (c) is revised to list the implementation process progresses. The consuming and expensive, if not specific types of operators that do not FAA is committed to working with impossible, and future guidance on have to comply with the historical industry to facilitate a smooth transition recording training events that might records reporting requirement. That from PRIA to PRD and to ensure that all result from this new rule may not group is the same as from the NPRM, pertinent records, as required by the translate accurately to previous but now more clearly defined. statute, are included in the PRD. Over recordkeeping practices. This Additionally, the deadline for reporting time, once contemporaneous reporting commenter argued a requirement to historical records is now three years and is ongoing for five years and PRD provide historical records during the 90 days after publication of the rule to compliance is normalized, the FAA current COVID–19 public health coincide with sole compliance with part expects operators will benefit from a emergency is unreasonable, and the new 111. The FAA also added a provision to cost savings. regulation should provide a consistent establish interim timelines for historical The remainder of § 111.255 is adopted methodology to record and report data records reporting. The FAA understands as proposed. and have a defined future starting point. that operators uploading historical The FAA received other comments on records may have significant records to D. Subpart D—Pilot Access and historical record reporting format; these provide to the PRD. To facilitate a PRD Responsibilities comments are addressed in Section transition that focuses on the most 1. Applicability—Section 111.300 V.C.3. regarding the format for reporting relevant records in accordance with records. concerns expressed by the NTSB and The FAA proposed in the NPRM that subpart D would apply to pilots holding ii. FAA Response the Families of Continental Flight 3407, the FAA will prioritize uploading an airline transport or commercial pilot As discussed extensively in the historical records that date on or after certificate under 14 CFR part 61, as well NPRM, the FAA is required by statute January 1, 2015. Those historical as any remote pilots operating with a to include historical records in the PRD records must be uploaded within two part 107 certificate or any individual and does not have discretion to adjust years of the date of publication of the who is employed as a pilot by an the dates or records that the PRD must final rule. All other historical records operator of a public aircraft. As adopted, include. A4A’s analysis disregarded must be uploaded prior to the last date this subpart will apply to any pilot critical text in 49 U.S.C. 44703(i)(4). The of PRIA usage, which will be three years meeting the criteria in § 111.1, subsection cited in the PRD Act, and 90 days after publication of the final regardless of the certificate, in particularly (h)(4)(B)(ii)(II), requires air rule. accordance with revisions made for carriers and other persons to report The section will include opportunity consistency with § 111.1. The FAA ‘‘[r]ecords that the air carrier or other to request deviation from the notes that in response to a comment person is maintaining, on such date of compliance dates provided in (d) of this from AOPA about whether pilots enactment pursuant to subsection section. The FAA will consider without a commercial certificate would (h)(4).’’ As stated above, subsection providing deviations based on an be able to access their records: Only (h)(4) encompasses the 5-year period evaluation that the delay in uploading pilots that would be employed by an preceding the enactment of the PRD Act. historical records is due to operator subject to this part would have Alternative 4 was not accepted for legal circumstances beyond the control of the industry records in the PRD. Any other reasons. This alternative was discussed air carrier or other operator and that records would be FAA records with per the initial Regulatory Flexibility such a delay would not have an adverse which the pilot would likely already be Analysis of impacts on small entities effect on safety. Any operator seeking a familiar. prepared for the NPRM as a means of deviation must include all information addressing potential cost. At the time of listed in subparagraph (2) in order for 2. Application for Database Access— the NPRM, the FAA presented the FAA to be able to consider the Section 111.305 Alternative 4 as a potentially legally request for deviation. The Administrator In this section, the FAA proposed permissible option, but on further may terminate the grant of deviation at regulations governing pilot access to the review, determined that this was not the any time upon notice to the operator. PRD and the minimum information

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 31046 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

necessary to gain access. The FAA also contemporaneously, as discussed in proposed paragraph (c), and therefore proposed to require submission of an Section V.C regarding § 111.215. By removed. application seven days prior to the requiring a pilot to provide an Paragraph (a), as adopted, requires a anticipated date of access and that affirmation that their employment pilot to report any error or inaccuracy to continued access would be subject to history for five years preceding the date the PRD in a form and manner compliance with § 111.25. of consent is accurate and complete and acceptable to the Administrator. If the i. Comments Received also by requiring employers to upload record was entered by a current or records that indicate problematic pilot One commenter stated the proposed former employer, the pilot can use the performance, the FAA will ensure that PRD to flag a record as incorrect. This requirement for pilots to provide a a potential employer has access to all current U.S. mailing address and request will go through the PRD to the pilot records for review prior to reporting entity. The PRD administrator telephone number would prevent many permitting the pilot to begin service. will flag an FAA record manually, if pilots, who live outside the U.S. but are The FAA otherwise adopts § 111.310 disputed by the pilot, but that dispute employed by U.S. air carriers, from without substantive changes. The FAA resolution process occurs in the FAA being able to access their database did not receive any comments specific system where the original record records. Furthermore, it may inhibit to this provision. pilots who live abroad but hold FAA- resides, such as CAIS or EIS. To correct issued airman certificates from applying 4. Pilot Right of Review—Section an error or inaccuracy in a record, the for jobs with U.S. based companies, as 111.315 pilot would need to request a correction under the Privacy Act. For FAA records, companies might not seek to work with The PRD Act provides a statutory the AC 120–68J includes a description paper-based release from liability right of review for a pilot of his or her of the appropriate office to contact for agreements that would be required for records. The FAA proposed to codify each type of FAA record to request access to a pilot’s records. This this right to review in § 111.315. The correction through the Privacy Act. commenter recommended the FAA pilot has the right to review both the allow those pilots access to the PRD pilot record reflected in the PRD, as well The process of adding a notation to a through another means of validation as a copy of any State motor vehicle pilot record disputed by the pilot is that does not require a U.S. mailing driving records that may have been automatic. The FAA does not review address. provided to a prospective employer. The requests for notation. For discussion of ii. FAA Response FAA adopts this section substantively as further comments regarding dispute resolution, please see Section V.C.11. The FAA adopts § 111.305 as proposed, and adds paragraph (c), which allows a pilot to submit a request proposed with three changes. The first E. Other Amendments change is that a pilot must first request to the FAA so that the pilot can review access to the PRD for the purposes listed all records contained in the PRD The FAA proposed to amend in § 111.305(a) if the pilot is requesting pertaining to that pilot, without § 91.1051 to replace the pilot safety access to the pilot’s own records, except credentials issued in accordance with background check required by this as provided in § 111.315(c). Second, in § 111.305. The PRD record would be section with compliance with part 111. response to concerns from commenters transmitted external to the database, so The FAA instead removes § 91.1051, about the requirement for a U.S. mailing the pilot could access his or her record effective upon September 9, 2024, and address, the FAA determined that for without accessing the PRD database. consolidates applicability for part 111 in purposes of this regulation, a The FAA did not receive any comments § 111.1. The FAA also withdraws requirement for the pilot to have a U.S. specific to this provision. proposed amendments to parts 91, 121, mailing address is unnecessary. 5. Reporting Errors and Requesting 125, and 135, for the same reason. However, the FAA notes that system Corrections—Section 111.320 The FAA received comments on this capabilities may be functionally limited In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to topic from the PlaneSense commenters. for web access outside the United These commenters indicated that States. The FAA acceptance of an require operators to have a process enabling a pilot to report errors and fractional operators have an obligation address does not guarantee an ability to under current § 91.1051 to conduct a access the PRD while located physically provide corrections to the pilot’s PRD record. This process would involve pilot safety background check within 90 outside the United States. Third, the days of hiring a pilot, and the operator FAA removed the provision proposed in flagging the record as incorrect and submitting comments explaining why must request FAA records and records (d), which was duplicative of the denial from previous employers spanning the of access provision adopted at § 111.25. that record is incorrect. The FAA would also flag that record as ‘‘in dispute’’ if prior 5 years of the pilot’s flight-related 3. Written Consent—Section 111.310 a disagreement exists with respect to the employment records. These commenters note this section does not impose a In § 111.310, the FAA proposed to content of the record. It would remain require air carriers and other operators ‘‘in dispute’’ until resolution of that recordkeeping requirement on the obtain consent from a pilot for review of dispute between the pilot and an air fractional operator, as § 91.1027 imposes both PRD records and any State motor carrier or other operator is complete. that obligation. vehicle driving records about that pilot. The FAA reorganized this section to Fractional operators would comply The FAA amends proposed § 111.310 to delete proposed (a) and (b). As the PRD with the PRD as set forth in the include affirmation of pilot employment Act requires the Administrator to applicability of part 111. A fractional history dating back five years. Inclusion provide an opportunity for an operator would begin reviewing records of this pilot employment history individual to submit written comments in the PRD one year after the date of addresses concerns from commenters, correcting his or her record in the PRD, publication of the final rule and and in particular the NTSB, that there a separate requirement in this section is continue to comply with § 91.1051 could be a gap in history for certain not necessary and paragraph (a) is where records are not yet available in pilots, particularly if not all pilot removed. Furthermore, proposed PRD until three years and 90 days after records are uploaded paragraph (b) was duplicative of the rule.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31047

F. Other Comments of preparing policies and procedures for transfer historical records to be electronic recordkeeping, then $175,000. 1. Comments on Requests To Extend the requesting authorization for the LOA, Comment Period or Provide Further A4A noted that its member survey MSpec, or OpSpec, plus the ongoing Rulemaking Documents revealed that almost all carriers store cost of maintaining electronic records, electronic documents in different Several commenters, including the or risk establishing an unfunded systems for different categories of NBAA, Cargo Airline Association, mandate. documents. A4A suggested carriers will Ameristar, Experimental Aircraft have to engage a variety of software 4. FAA Response Association, and the National Air experts to advise them on how to Transportation Association, requested The FAA acknowledges receipt of this transfer the information that the FAA that the FAA extend the public comment but notes that these points and seeks. comment period. Many of these the associated costs are beyond the Other commenters expressed concern commenters indicated they needed scope of this rulemaking. about the cost to convert historical more time to review the proposed rule records to XML. Noting that most and prepare their responses to the many G. Comments Related to Regulatory Notices and Analyses operators have some form of digital detailed questions that the FAA posed, record such as a PDF, one commenter particularly because the proposal was The FAA received comments said allowing bulk uploads of such published during the unprecedented regarding costs associated with records would alleviate the economic COVID–19 public health emergency, reporting records, the scope of impact on small operators substantially. which has affected the air transportation applicability of part 111, the benefits of The commenter also recommended industry. this rule, and the FAA’s assumptions allowing operators to send PDF copies NBAA commented that the significant and data concerning both costs and the of records to the FAA, which can then number of requests for information by Paperwork Reduction Act. convert them into any format the FAA the FAA preceding the NPRM, and the feels is appropriate. The commenter contradictions between the various 1. Comments on Costs Associated With recommended taking advantage of documents supporting the proposal, Reporting Historical Records existing recordkeeping requirements, suggests the FAA should have A4A stated it agrees generally with such as part 142 training center records, published an advance notice of the potential benefits of the proposed to populate the database and reduce the proposed rulemaking. NBAA suggested rule but asserted the FAA significantly burden on part 91 operators. developing a supplemental notice of underestimated the costs of the rule. A4A also believes that the FAA proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) or A4A stated that it surveyed its members underestimated costs for the manual holding a public hearing may result in to respond to the FAA’s requests for entry of historical records. A4A stated a more effective rulemaking effort and comments on the impact of the that, based on its member survey, the alleviate some industry concerns. For proposed rule, but that it faced several FAA should use the maximum these reasons, NBAA recommended the challenges in collecting the information estimated historical records as the basis FAA issue a SNPRM to reflect industry it sought. for determining the cost of manual entry input on the FAA’s list of questions. A4A noted that in the regulatory of historical records into the PRD 2. FAA Response impact analysis of the proposed rule, because that estimate more accurately The FAA refers commenters to its the FAA states it anticipates most reflects the number of manual records. Denial Letter for Extension of Comment existing electronic record systems can A4A also urged the FAA to correct its Period (FAA–2020–0246–0038), which export data through XML for uploading cost-per-pilot estimate to enter manual the FAA posted to the rulemaking into the PRD and that carrier export records to ensure realistic manual entry docket on June 12, 2020. The FAA utilities need to be configured initially burdens are captured. The commenter reiterates this rationale and emphasizes to match the expected fields of the PRD. recommended the FAA use an average the FAA’s determination to move A4A said that estimating costs for what of 20 minutes for manual entry of a pilot forward with adoption of this rule. This to report, but not how to report it, is training/checking record, 15 minutes to final rule clarifies specific points of extremely challenging, especially given set up a new pilot in the PRD, and 10 confusion raised by commenters in the diversity of record formats over the minutes to input manually both response to the NPRM. Moreover, the 15-year historical records period. A4A disciplinary records and termination FAA will work closely with industry to described challenges such as a lack of events. ensure a common understanding of the technical requirements for reporting A4A also commented that the regulatory requirements in part 111. records accompanying the proposal and regulatory impact analysis for the the absence of a pilot program. proposed rule did not include costs to 3. Comments on Electronic Records, A4A noted that its member survey retrieve, search, and review historical LOAs, MSpecs, and OPSpecs resulted in 8 out of 10 members files and that the FAA limited the costs NBAA commented that, by providing extensive information on the of manually reporting historical records implementing an electronic PRD, the impact of the proposed rule, with to the cost to type the data into the PRD FAA has, by example, determined descriptions of how the carriers would once it has been collected. The electronic records are valid and comply, the number of full-time commenter stated this grossly constitute sufficient evidence of employees that would be needed to underestimates the actual burden to air regulatory compliance. NBAA asserted comply, and cost estimates. Those eight carriers to report historical data if the FAA mandates that air carriers, members included four large part 121 manually to the PRD, particularly for operators, and other entities use and carriers and four mid-size part 121 historical drug and alcohol testing submit electronic records through the carriers. A4A estimated the average cost records, and the FAA should include PRD but also requires authorization to for a large part 121 carrier to transfer such burden in its analysis. A4A use electronic recordkeeping through historical records electronically to be encouraged the FAA to reassess its cost LOA, MSpec, or OpSpec, the FAA must $602,875. A4A estimated the average analysis for manually reporting drug include in its economic analysis the cost cost for a mid-size part 121 carrier to and alcohol testing records.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 31048 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

A4A estimated the number of pilots would be of no value to the hiring A4A’s recommendation to use 20 who have worked at covered carriers process. minutes for manual entry of a pilot since 2005 that are still alive is at least A4A also commented that it is crucial training record; instead, the FAA uses 130,000. A4A calculated total labor for the FAA to stand up a working group an average of 4 minutes to enter this costs of $540 to input a single pilot’s immediately after a final rule is type of record. This estimate of 4 historical records into the PRD, then published. Further, A4A noted that, minutes does not include the time it multiplied these labor costs by 130,000 even though carriers may have some might take to locate the record from the pilots to arrive at an estimate of historical records in electronic format, official record keeping system. A4A $70,200,000 in total costs for part 121 this does not guarantee they can convert appears to capture this time in its carriers to retrieve, search, and review such records for the PRD. A4A stated estimate of supplemental costs, which historical documents and ensure none of its members has its drug and includes the cost to retrieve, search and sensitive information not required by alcohol records systems connected to review historical records. The FAA the PRD is excluded. This estimate other systems; accordingly, the carriers incorporated A4A’s supplemental cost includes both manual entry and will have to configure separately each of $70.2 million in the final Regulatory electronic data entry. A4A set of historical records for reporting the Impact Assessment (RIA), available in recommended that, given these PRD. A4A estimated the costs of the docket for this rulemaking. substantial additional costs, the FAA reporting historical records will The FAA has increased the cost of should eliminate the requirement to multiply based upon the number of retrieving, searching, and reviewing provide historical documents or, in the systems from which an air carrier must historical records for part 121 operators alternative, require no more than 5 years collect and report data to the PRD. based on data provided by A4A, as explained below. While the FAA of historical documents from the final 2. FAA Response rule compliance date. included a supplemental cost of The FAA has updated the regulatory An individual commented on the reporting historical records for the impact analysis of the final rule with NPRM, the FAA accepted A4A’s FAA’s estimate for the time it would data A4A provided for increased costs estimate that it would cost part 121 take to enter a pilot’s information of reporting records to the PRD and the operators $70.2 million to retrieve, manually, estimating instead that it costs of searching, retrieving and search, and review historical documents would take approximately an hour per reviewing historical records. Details are and ensure sensitive information not pilot. The commenter noted it has paper provided in the comment responses required by the PRD is excluded. For the records, so it will have to find the below. The FAA also updated the final rule, the FAA updated its analysis records, sort through years of training regulatory impact analysis of the final to include this cost for part 121 certificates, and then enter records going rule using the electronic data costs operators. back 15 years for each pilot. The referred to above for part 121 operators. The FAA acknowledges the lower commenter noted that 40 percent of its The other commenters did not submit costs of Alternative 4 but believes the pilots have been employed with the data on the costs to convert historical technological capabilities of the PRD company for more than 10 years. The records to XML. will, in a few years, reduce concern over commenter said that if it goes back 15 The FAA made the decision not to electronic upload of historical records. years, it would have to enter records for accept PDF because of data storage The FAA considered all comments 251 part 121 pilots alone. The concerns and because personal received requesting a different commenter noted that entering records information would have to be redacted; interpretation of the PRD Act’s for these 251 pilots would take 6.3 however, as mentioned previously, the requirement to include historical weeks of doing nothing but data entry. FAA will provide a means to records and maintains that the statute is The commenter called this overly accomplish electronic batch upload of explicit with respect to which records burdensome and expensive. records. As discussed in section V.C., must be included, as discussed in A4A recommended that the FAA the PRD Act does not permit record Section V.C.12. adopt Alternative 4 from the initial reporting by part 142 training centers, as The preamble of this rule includes Regulatory Flexibility Analysis as the the PRD Act is restricted to entities that discussion regarding the plans the FAA final rule.57 A4A stated that Alternative employed a pilot. has for providing information to 4 is the most effective option for In the final rule, the FAA includes the industry after publication of the final capturing historical records. A4A stated cost for manual entry of drug and rule, beginning with the first that this would only require accessing alcohol testing, verification of NDR compliance date for submitting a records through both the PRD and PRIA search, and pilot disciplinary actions, responsible person application, which is for 5 years, as opposed to 2 years under where required. The FAA does not agree 90 days after publication of the final the proposed rule. A4A stated the that it should use the maximum rule. The FAA also commits to benefit of not having to input 18 years estimated historical records as the basis providing a method for electronic of pilot records would outweigh the for determining the cost of manual entry transfer of records prior to the sunset of burden of accessing pilot information of historical records. The final rule PRIA. through both PRIA and the PRD for analysis continues to use the average of three more years. ALPA also supported minimum and maximum estimated 3. Comments on the Impact to Part 91 Alternative 4, and quoted the PRD ARC historical records. Operators stating pilot records from training The FAA includes the cost of entering GAMA, NBAA, the FL Aviation Corp., events accessed more than 5 years ago disciplinary and termination records Cummins, Inc., and more than 500 using 10 minutes as the time to enter individuals commented on the costs and 57 Alternative 4 would require air carriers and each of these record types, as suggested other burdens the proposed operators to report present and future pilot records by A4A. The FAA does not include the recordkeeping and reporting to the PRD, but continue to send historical records cost of setting up a pilot in the PRD for requirements would impose on part 91 under PRIA until the PRD has 5 years of pilot records (by the start of 2025, the PRD would have the first time, as it will occur via an operators. Most of these commenters data from 2020 to 2024), at which point PRIA could automated script from the airman asserted that the proposed rule would be discontinued. 85 FR 17701, March 30, 2020. registry. The FAA does not agree with impose significant costs and other

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31049

burdens on these operators with little- the total number of users and what this proposed rule and has updated them in to-no associated benefits. rule would mean to each one. The this final rule. The FAA estimated cost GAMA commented that the commenter said it is incorrect to suggest savings due to discontinuation of PRIA administrative burden and associated there is no societal cost when there is and the costs of reporting records to the cost of recordkeeping imposed on part no estimate on the burden to the PRD. The FAA presents the distribution 91 operators, which are not currently individual user, especially ones who of costs over operator types in the subject to the same recordkeeping must absorb additional costs (part 91), analysis along with an estimate of the requirements as part 121 and part 135 rather than simply increasing ticket number of users. The FAA estimates operators, is unreasonable because these prices to cover the costs, as the some costs on a per record basis. Some operators typically do not benefit from scheduled air carriers have done. operators may choose to pass these the information in the PRD. The FL Aviation Corp. expressed additional costs on in increased ticket NBAA stated the proposed rule lacks concern that the cost of transaction prices and some may absorb these costs. a robust analysis of the effects on part requests will triple their current cost of Regardless, these costs are captured in 91 operations and ignores many responding to record requests. The the analysis. consensus recommendations of the PRD commenter appears to be referring to This rule does not include the user fee ARC, resulting in a significant burden user fees. The FL Aviation Corp. also the FAA had proposed to include. on numerous small entities with no asserted that, without any background Therefore, this rule does not estimate clear nexus to part 121 carrier hiring. data or information, the FAA’s cost NBAA recommended that the FAA estimate represents nothing more than the cost of transaction requests. either remove part 91 operators from the opinions or speculation and appear The FAA documented its assumptions rule or conduct a more accurate cost- arbitrary, especially given that part 91 and sources in the analysis for the benefit analysis in accordance with the operations have never previously been proposed rule. When data was not Administrative Procedure Act and included in the records sweep. available, the FAA relied on input from Executive Order 12866. NBAA also subject matter experts. disagreed with the FAA’s claim that the 4. FAA Response proposal would not require operators to The FAA has reduced substantively 58 5. Comments on the Benefits of the Rule collect new data for entry into the PRD the reporting requirements and therefore and they and other operators pointed NBAA stated all the benefits of the costs for corporate flight departments, rule identified by the FAA apply to part out that part 91 operators currently have public aircraft operations, and air tour no regulatory requirement to maintain 121 and part 135 air carriers. NBAA said operators in the final rule. These there are no benefits for part 91 and part certain records. These commenters operators will only be required to contended that the new recordkeeping 125 operators that would be subject to provide records upon request from a this rule, only burdens and costs. and reporting requirements would hiring air carrier, unless the records therefore require operators to revise reflect termination or certain A4A disagreed with the FAA’s completely current procedures they disciplinary actions, in which case these assumption that one of the benefits of have used effectively for years, which operators must report the records the NPRM is to lower the potential of will be costly. contemporaneously. In addition, air tour inaccurate interpretation of pilot records NBAA also commented that the FAA operators must report drug and alcohol by allowing for easier reading of pilot considers initial compliance for part 91 records contemporaneously. records, as the PRIA records might operators but includes no annual costs The proposed rule required reporting sometimes be handwritten and difficult of compliance and provides no insight only of records that the operator had to read. A4A said this is not a benefit into the assumptions that built the costs accumulated; it did not propose that of the PRD because the same concern or analysis of part 91 training and operators collect new data. The final exists with PRIA; carriers will have to checking events per year. NBAA rule as adopted also does not propose interpret the same difficult-to-read asserted that the assumption that part 91 recordkeeping requirements that diverge handwritten files to comply with the operators maintain electronic databases significantly from PRIA; therefore, the PRD. A4A also identified an additional is false. risk of incorrect or misinterpreted NASA’s Aircraft Management FAA does not agree operators would have to revise current procedures, other information being entered into the PRD Division stated that the level of data and remaining there for the life of the provided to the PRD is excessive and than to enter records to the PRD, as pilot. requires a recurring enormous effort. required by the rule that they have The commenter noted that NASA’s accumulated. 6. FAA Response primary records source is a paper-based For the NPRM, the FAA erroneously personnel training and qualification file assumed that corporate flight This rule responds to a statutory for each pilot. The commenter estimated departments maintain all records in requirement and was not motivated by that the rule’s burdensome recurring electronic databases and assumed that a purpose to benefit one particular data requirement would add a all records would transfer to the PRD in operator type over another; instead, significant cost to NASA of the first year. The FAA has reconsidered Congress directed parameters for who approximately $1 million annually. this assumption and, in this rule, would be reporting entities and An individual commented that the includes annual costs to enter records reviewing entities. As a result of this FAA’s cost analysis ignores the manually for all operators. rule, operators will be better prepared to increased cost to part 91 operators and The FAA disagrees that the cost make informed hiring decisions to is therefore not comparable to the analysis ignores the increased cost to support aviation safety. Although files current PRIA structure, rendering it part 91 operators. The FAA detailed may still be difficult to read, the FAA useless for cost savings comparison. these costs in the analysis of the assumes that it is not as difficult for an This commenter also faulted the cost operator to interpret its own historical 58 However, estimated costs the FAA includes in records as it would be for an operator analysis for not estimating overall costs this final rule are higher than those estimated in the on a per user basis. The commenter NPRM because the FAA considered data on part to interpret another operator’s historical questioned whether the FAA estimated 121 costs submitted by a commenter. records.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 31050 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

7. Other Comments on Assumptions and PRD accepts one record documenting obstacles to the foreign commerce of the Data that the pilot finished the curriculum, United States. In developing U.S. A4A stated the FAA must revise its not multiple records detailing each standards, this Act requires agencies to cost analysis to correct the assumption event in the curriculum. A4A’s consider international standards and, that if a carrier has the FAA’s approval comment is unclear concerning whether where appropriate, that they be the basis the basis of the estimates is the count of for a computer-based recordkeeping of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded transition curricula or the number of system with OpSpec A025,59 then all Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. events inside the curriculum. records that carrier must upload to the 104–4) requires agencies to prepare a PRD are already in an electronic format. 9. Comments on Paperwork Reduction written assessment of the costs, benefits, A4A noted that, while a carrier must Act Burden Issues and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate obtain A025 to use an electronic One commenter stated that mandating likely to result in the expenditure by recordkeeping system to ensure the dual recordkeeping for 2 years and 90 State, local, or tribal governments, in the same data integrity used in a paper days post-implementation effectively system, A025 authorization does not doubles the workload for covered aggregate, or by the private sector, of mean that every carrier system is employers, which does not meet the $100 million or more annually (adjusted electronic. A4A said its member survey requirements of the Paperwork for inflation with base year of 1995). revealed that many human resource files Reduction Act. Another commenter The FAA provides a detailed Regulatory containing disciplinary records or remarked generally that the Impact Analysis of this final rule in the separation records are paper-based. requirements of the proposed rule seems docket for this rulemaking. This portion Furthermore, A4A noted that even to contradict the purpose of the of the preamble summarizes the FAA’s carriers that store human resource Paperwork Reduction Act. analysis of the economic impacts of this records electronically responded that rule. 10. FAA Response they would need to enter information In conducting these analyses, the FAA manually into the PRD because human PRIA is maintained until the PRD is has determined this rule: (1) Has resources files contain sensitive populated with the minimal records benefits that justify its costs; (2) is not information that cannot be shared. necessary to ensure that hiring air an economically ‘‘significant regulatory A4A noted the FAA’s estimate carriers have access to the records they action’’ as defined in section 3(f) of excludes transition upgrade training, need and that no gap exists. However, Executive Order 12866; (3) is not which the FAA explained is because it if the operator updates PRD with ‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s does not know how frequently pilots records before PRIA is phased out the Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) train on new aircraft, but expects such operator does not have to report records will have a significant economic impact training is infrequent. A4A stated the via PRIA. There should be no dual on a substantial number of small results of its member survey indicate reporting requirements, because an entities; (5) will not create unnecessary that a mid-size and large part 121 carrier operator would provide records via obstacles to the foreign commerce of the averages between 1,200 and 3,000 either PRIA or PRD until PRIA is phased transition training events per year. A4A out. The FAA assessed the baseline United States; and (6) will not impose asked the FAA to amend the analysis to incremental change in costs in the an unfunded mandate on State, local, or reflect this omitted data to assess the analysis of the proposed rule, noting tribal governments, or on the private true impact and cost of this rulemaking. that cost savings do not begin until sector by exceeding the threshold PRIA is phased out. In addition, the identified previously. These analyses 8. FAA Response FAA acknowledged that the analysis in are summarized in this section. The FAA acknowledges some records the NPRM potentially overestimates A. Regulatory Evaluation it assumed to be entered electronically costs as operators can transition to PRD might have to be entered manually and before the date when PRIA is 1. Benefits the costs of manual entry may be discontinued, yet cost savings are not This rule promotes aviation safety by underestimated for this reason. It is not captured until that date. clear from the A4A comment how many facilitating operators’ consideration of of these events will result in records VI. Regulatory Notices and Analyses pilot skill and performance when required for the PRD. A transition- Changes to Federal regulations must making hiring and personnel training curriculum consists of multiple undergo several economic analyses. management decisions by using the training events. This number varies by First, Executive Order 12866 and most accurate and complete pilot approved training program. An event Executive Order 13563 direct that each records available and by making those might be a ground school session or Federal agency shall propose or adopt a records accessible electronically. The simulator session. All the events regulation only upon a reasoned rule requires use of the PRD that together make up the curriculum. After determination that the benefits of the includes information maintained by the the pilot finishes all the events, they are intended regulation justify its costs. In FAA concerning current airman considered to have completed the addition, DOT rulemaking procedures certificates with any associated type training curriculum. The PRD only in subpart B of 49 CFR part 5 instruct ratings and current medical certificates, accepts completion (or withdrawal) of DOT agencies to issue a regulation upon including any limitations or restrictions the training curriculum. It does not a reasoned determination that benefits to those certificates, airman practical accept records of each event that make exceed costs. Second, the Regulatory test failures, and summaries of legal up the curriculum. In other words, the Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) enforcement actions. The PRD will requires agencies to analyze the contain air carrier, operator, and FAA 59 OpSpec A025—Extension of Due Date for economic impact of regulatory changes records on an individual’s performance Required Action by Notice N 8900.368, OpSpec/ on small entities. Third, the Trade as a pilot for the life of the individual MSpec/TSpec/LOA A025, Electronic Signatures, that could be used as a hiring tool in an Electronic Recordkeeping Systems, and Electronic Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96–39) Manual Systems, available at https://fsims.faa.gov/ prohibits agencies from setting air carrier’s decision-making process for wdocs/notices/n8900_395.htm. standards that create unnecessary pilot employment.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31051

By requiring that pilot records be pilots complete and mail, fax, or email discounted less in terms of present entered into the PRD and reviewed by forms to authorize requests for pilots’ values than the recurring cost savings the hiring air carrier, this rule will: records to be provided. Under the PRD, that occur after the discontinuance of • Promote aviation safety by most of this process occurs PRIA. These historical record reporting facilitating operators’ consideration of electronically. Over the 10-year costs represent about 87 percent of the pilot skills and performance when regulatory period after the effective date total costs of the rule.60 As discussed making hiring decisions by using the of the rule (2021–2030), the present previously, the statutory requirements most accurate and complete pilot value cost savings to industry is about limit FAA’s discretion to reduce the records available and by making those $21.2 million or $3.0 million annualized requirements for operators to report records accessible electronically. As using a seven percent discount rate. historical records. This limits the FAA’s previously discussed, a single algorithm Using a three percent discount rate, the ability to reduce the associated costs. does not exist that can tell the potential present value cost savings to industry is However, the cost savings from the employer whether it should hire a pilot about $27.4 million over the 10-year discontinuance of PRIA are expected to based on a ratio of satisfactory and period of analysis or about $3.2 million pay for these high upfront costs over the unsatisfactory flight checks. However, annualized. After the discontinuance long run as the PRD becomes widely providing this information three years and 90 days after the rule is used. electronically about the airman will published, the annual recurring ii. FAA Costs To Develop the PRD assist the potential employer in making industry cost savings will more than a hiring decision in a timelier and less offset the recurring annual costs of the In addition to future regulatory costs, cumbersome manner than is possible rule. the FAA has incurred costs to prototype with PRIA. 61 • 3. Costs and develop the PRD since 2010. From Allow for speedier retrieval of pilot 2010 to 2020, the FAA estimates the records from the PRD than is possible i. Net Regulatory Costs of the Rule present value PRD development costs with PRIA. Under PRIA, the hiring air After the effective date of the rule, are about $14.1 million or $1.5 million carrier requests records from sometimes operators will incur costs to report pilot annualized using a seven percent multiple carriers and waits to receive records to the PRD and to train and discount rate. Using a three percent the records. With the PRD, the operator register as users of the PRD. The FAA discount rate, the present value PRD will merely log on to the database and, will incur costs of the rule related to the development costs are about $18.0 in most cases, search for the records. million over the same period or about • Lower the potential of inaccurate operations and maintenance of the PRD. $2.4 million annualized. In the context interpretation of pilot records by Over a 10-year period of analysis (2021– of analyzing the impacts of the rule, allowing for easier reading of pilot 2030), the rule results in present value these are ‘‘sunk’’ costs that already records, as the PRIA records might net costs (costs less savings) to industry occurred and cannot be recovered. sometimes be handwritten and difficult and the FAA of about $67.0 million or These sunk costs are contrasted with to read. $9.5 million annualized using a seven • Allow for easier storage and access percent discount rate. Using a three prospective costs, which are future of pilot records than PRIA. percent discount rate, the rule results in regulatory costs of the rule. The FAA • Allow pilots to consent to release present value net costs of about $71.0 presents these sunk costs to inform the and review of records. million or about $8.3 million public of the total PRD development annualized. and regulatory costs. 2. Cost Savings The cost driver of the rule is the 4. Summary of Benefits, Costs, and Cost This rule results in recurring annual reporting cost for air carriers to upload Savings cost savings to industry because the historical records before the PRD will replace PRIA three years and discontinuance of PRIA three years and The following table summarizes the 90 days after the rule is published. 90 days after the effective date of the benefits, costs, and cost savings of the Under PRIA, air carriers, operators, and rule. These up-front costs are rule to industry and the FAA.

TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF BENEFITS, COSTS, AND COST SAVINGS

Benefits

• Promotes aviation safety by facilitating operators’ consideration of pilot skill and performance when making hiring and personnel management decisions. • Provides faster retrieval of pilot records compared to PRIA. • Reduces inaccurate information and interpretation compared to PRIA. • Provides easier storage of and access to pilot records than PRIA. • Allows pilots to consent to release and review of records.

Summary of Costs and Cost Savings * ($Millions) 10-Year 10-Year Category present value Annualized present value Annualized (7%) (7%) (3%) (3%)

Costs ...... 88.2 12.6 98.5 11.5 Cost Savings ...... (21.2 ) (3.0 ) (27.4 ) (3.2 )

60 Based on the Regulatory Impact Analysis of the 61 On August 1, 2010, Congress directed the based on a pre-statutory baseline. The FAA final rule, about 88% of the historical record Administrator to establish the PRD (Pub. L. 111– provides discussion of these costs to inform the reporting costs are incurred by part 121 operators. 216, Section 203 (49 U.S.C. 44703(i)). OMB Circular total PRD development and regulatory costs. A–4 asks agencies to consider costs of mandates

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 31052 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

Summary of Costs and Cost Savings * ($Millions) 10-Year 10-Year Category present value Annualized present value Annualized (7%) (7%) (3%) (3%)

Net Costs ...... 67.0 9.5 71.0 8.3 * Table Notes: Columns may not sum due to rounding. Savings are shown in parentheses to distinguish from costs. Estimates are provided at seven and three percent discount rates per OMB guidance. Industry and FAA costs are higher in the beginning of the period of analysis than in- dustry cost savings that occur later in the period of analysis after the discontinuance of PRIA three years and 90 days after the rule is published. This results in larger annualized estimates of costs and net costs at a seven percent discount rate compared to a three percent discount rate.

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

TABLE 4—COMPARISON OF NET COSTS: PROPOSED RULE AND FINAL RULE [$Million]

Net costs Proposed rule Proposed rule Final rule

10-Year Present Value (7%) ...... 12.8 80.8 67.0 Annualized (7%) ...... 1.8 11.5 9.5 10-Year Present Value (3%) ...... 11.5 87.8 71.0 Annualized (3%) ...... 1.4 10.3 8.3 * Updated for data from public comments. + Updated for changes in requirements and data from public comments.

The FAA analyzed the impacts of this B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination Agencies must perform a review to rule based on the best publicly available The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 determine whether a rule will have a data at the time of this writing. The FAA (Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a significant economic impact on a acknowledges uncertainty exists in principle of regulatory issuance that substantial number of small entities. If estimating the costs of this rule, given agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the Agency determines that it will, the variety of operators and record- the objectives of the rule and of Section 604 of the Act requires agencies keeping practices. applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and to prepare a Final Regulatory Flexibility informational requirements to the scale Analysis describing the impact of final The analysis of this rule reflects rules on small entities. operator and industry conditions that of the businesses, organizations, and The FAA has determined this final predate the COVID–19 public health governmental jurisdictions subject to rule will have a significant economic emergency. While there is currently a regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and impact on a substantial number of small lack of data to forecast the timing of entities. Therefore, under the recovery from COVID–19 impacts consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their requirements in Section 604 of the RFA, relative to implementation of the rule, the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis the analysis provides information on the actions to assure that such proposals are given serious consideration.’’ The RFA must address: types of impacts that may be covers a wide range of small entities, • A statement of the need for, and experienced in the future as the including small businesses, not-for- objectives of, the rule; economy returns to baseline levels. profit organizations, and small • A statement of the significant issues governmental jurisdictions. raised by the public comments in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31053

response to the initial regulatory subsequent sunset of PRIA. The PRD exception requiring that they report flexibility analysis, a statement of the Act requires the FAA to ensure the contemporaneous termination records assessment of the Agency of such issues, database contains records from various and certain disciplinary records. and a statement of any changes made in sources related to individual pilot Contemporaneous reporting of drug and the proposed rule as a result of such performance and to issue implementing alcohol records by air tour operators comments; regulations. It also amended PRIA by would also be required, even in the • The response of the Agency to any requiring the FAA to ensure operators absence of a request for them. comments filed by the Chief Counsel for evaluate pilot records in the database 3. The Response of the Agency to Any Advocacy of the Small Business prior to hiring individuals as pilots. Comments Filed by the Chief Counsel Administration in response to the Congress has since enacted the FAA for Advocacy of the Small Business proposed rule, and a detailed statement Extension, Safety, and Security Act of Administration in Response to the of any change made to the proposed rule 2016 (FESSA), Public Law 114–190 Proposed Rule, and a Detailed in the final rule as a result of the (July 15, 2016). Section 2101 of FESSA Statement of Any Change Made to the comments; required the FAA to establish an • Proposed Rule in the Final Rule as a A description of and an estimate of electronic pilot records database by Result of the Comments the number of small entities to which April 30, 2017. This final rule the rule will apply or an explanation of implements those statutory mandates. The Agency received no comments why no such estimate is available; from the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of • A description of the projected 2. Statement of the Significant Issues the Small Business Administration. reporting, recordkeeping, and other Raised by the Public Comments in compliance requirements of the rule, Response to the Initial Regulatory 4. A Description of and an Estimate of including an estimate of the classes of Flexibility Analysis, a Statement of the the Number of Small Entities to Which small entities which will be subject to Assessment of the Agency of Such the Rule Will Apply or an Explanation the requirement and the type of Issues, and a Statement of Any Changes of Why No Such Estimate Is Available professional skills necessary for Made in the Proposed Rule as a Result preparation of the report or record; and of Such Comments This rule will affect substantial • A description of the steps the numbers of small entities operating Agency has taken to minimize the A significant issue commenters raised under parts 91K, 121 and 135, air tour significant economic impact on small was the concern that the proposed rule operators, entities conducting public entities consistent with the stated would impose significant burdens on aircraft operations, and corporate flight objectives of applicable statutes, small businesses with little-to-no departments. There are approximately including a statement of the factual, associated benefits or could put small four dozen small part 121 carriers and policy, and legal reasons for selecting companies or flight departments out of two thousand small part 135 carriers the alternative adopted in the final rule business. Commenters were concerned and operators. All part 125 operators are and why each one of the other about corporate flight departments and small. Air tour operators are also significant alternatives to the rule public aircraft operations, which the typically small. These operators may considered by the Agency which affect FAA considered along with air tour consist of a couple of pilots flying less the impact on small entities was operators as potential gateway operators than five passengers per air tour. The rejected. (i.e., operators from which pilots would FAA estimates that all fractional transfer to air carriers). Commenters, in ownerships are large with revenues 1. Statement of the Need for and addition to describing the excessive exceeding $16.5 million. The FAA also Objectives of the Rule burden that the rule would impose, estimates that entities conducting PAO Following the Continental Flight 3407 stated that it was infrequent that a pilot are associated with large governmental accident, Congress enacted the Airline would leave employment with these jurisdictions. The FAA assumes that any Safety and Federal Aviation types of operators to seek employment corporation that could afford a corporate Administration Extension Act of 2010, with an air carrier. The FAA assessed flight department would have in excess Public Law 111–216 (Aug. 1, 2010).62 these concerns and reduced the burden of $16.5 million in revenues and is Section 203 of the PRD Act required the for these operators by requiring only therefore a large entity. The table below FAA to establish an electronic pilot that these operators report records upon offers more details on the operator types records database and provided for the request from a hiring air carrier, with an affected.

TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF SMALL ENTITIES IMPACTED

Number of 63 Type/part entities NAICS code SBA size standard Size

Part 121 Air Car- 76 481111—Scheduled Passenger Air Transportation; Less than 1,500 45 small, 31 large. riers. 481112—Scheduled Freight Air Transportation; 481211— employees. Nonscheduled Chartered Passenger Air Transportation; 481212—Nonscheduled Chartered Freight Air Transpor- tation. Part 135 Air Car- 2,053 481111—Scheduled Passenger Air Transportation; Less than 1,500 2050 small, 3 large. riers and Opera- 481112—Scheduled Freight Air Transportation; 481211— employees. tors. Nonscheduled Chartered Passenger Air Transportation; 481212—Nonscheduled Chartered Freight Air Transpor- tation. Part 125 Operators 70 481219—Other Nonscheduled Air Transportation ...... Less than $16.5M All small. in revenues.

62 Referred to as ‘‘the PRD Act’’ in this rule.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 31054 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF SMALL ENTITIES IMPACTED—Continued

Number of 63 Type/part entities NAICS code SBA size standard Size

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

While this rule will affect a respect to employment; and the Alternative 2, the FAA considered other substantial number of small entities, the verification of a search date of the options for the form and manner in FAA maintains that small entities will National Driver Register. Requirements which historical records could be be affected to a lesser extent than large for corporate flight departments, air tour submitted to the PRD by operators entities. This is because costs are a operators and public aircraft operations, employing pilots. These options function of size. For instance, costs to many of which are small businesses, included permitting the submission of enter data on pilots manually depends have been reduced in the final rule to records in portable document format on the number of pilots who work and only require reporting of most records (PDF), JPEG, bitmap (BMP), or other have worked for the operator. Both air upon request. Contemporaneous similar electronic file formats; the tour operators and part 125 operators reporting must occur for records submission of records using coded are comprised entirely of small concerning termination and disciplinary XML; or the submission of specified businesses. The FAA estimated that an actions for public aircraft and air tour information through direct manual data average of about 3 pilots work for an air operators and corporate flight entry. The FAA rejected this alternative tour operator and 10 pilots for a part 125 departments. In addition, drug and because it would result in extraneous operator. Air tour operators would not alcohol records for air tour operators are and possibly protected or sensitive be required to report historical records also always required. The types of information to be submitted to the PRD, and would incur a cost of $43 per professional skills needed are clerical could impose a burden on the FAA to operator per year (or about $14 per pilot skills for data entry, computer skills for review, and is beyond the FAA does not per year), and part 125 operators would electronic data transfer, management think Congress intended PRD to be a incur a cost of $725 per operator (or pilot skills for reviewing and about $72 per pilot) per year. summarizing pilot records, training and repository of all the information development skills, and human resource available on a pilot. In Alternative 3, the 5. A Description of the Projected management skills. FAA considered interpreting the PRD Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Act broadly and requiring all employers Compliance Requirements of the Rule, 6. A Description of the Steps the Agency of pilots to comply with the proposed Including an Estimate of the Classes of Has Taken To Minimize the Significant PRD requirements, regardless of Small Entities Which Will Be Subject to Economic Impact on Small Entities whether the information would be the Requirement and the Type of Consistent With the Stated Objectives of useful to hiring air carriers or not. The Professional Skills Necessary for Applicable Statutes, Including a FAA rejected this alternative because it Preparation of the Report or Record Statement of the Factual, Policy, and interpreted the requirement to apply to The rule requires air carriers, certain Legal Reasons for Selecting the those most likely to employ pilots who operators holding out to the public, Alternative Adopted in the Final Rule might subsequently apply to become air entities conducting public aircraft and Why Each One of the Other carrier pilots. In Alternative 4, the FAA Significant Alternatives to the Rule operations, air tour operators, fractional considered requiring operators report Considered by the Agency Which Affect ownerships, and corporate flight present and future pilot records to the the Impact on Small Entities Was departments to enter relevant data on PRD, but continue to send historical Rejected individuals employed as pilots into the records under PRIA until the PRD has PRD. The records entered into the PRD By reducing reporting requirements 5 years of pilot records, at which point include those related to: Pilot training, on public aircraft and air tour operators PRIA could be discontinued. The FAA qualification, proficiency, or and corporate flight departments, many rejected this because the lack of a professional competence of the of which are small businesses, the singular database would be detrimental individual, including comments and Agency has minimized the significant to the purpose of the rulemaking and evaluations made by a check pilot; drug economic impact on small entities. This diminish efficiency of review of pilot and alcohol testing; disciplinary action; does not contradict the PRD Act. records by employers who would have The FAA considered the following release from employment or resignation, to access records through both PRIA and termination, or disqualification with four alternatives in Regulatory Flexibility Determination section of the PRD. At the time of the NPRM, the FAA presented Alternative 4 as a potentially 63 For definitions of the NAICS codes please refer proposed rule. In Alternative 1, the FAA to 2017 NAICS Manual, pg. 380 https:// considered requiring all of the past pilot legally permissible option, but on www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/2017NAICS/2017_ historical data. This alternative was further review, determined that this was NAICS_Manual.pdf. Also, please note that these not the case. definitions may not completely align with the rejected because the FAA determined definitions set out in the FAA Code of Federal the proposed requirement would be Below is a more detailed description Regulations. sufficient to comply with the statute. In of Alternative 2 and the reasons it was

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31055

rejected. This alternative might have departments. The factual, legal, and This action contains amendments to affected the impact on small entities. policy reasons for the alternative the existing information collection The FAA considered options for the adopted in the final rule are found in requirements previously approved form and manner in which historical the preamble discussion preceding this under OMB Control Number 2120–0607. records could be submitted to the PRD section. As required by the Paperwork by air carriers and operators employing Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. C. International Trade Impact pilots. These alternative options 3507(d)), the FAA has submitted these Assessment included permitting the submission of information collection amendments to records in portable document format The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 OMB for its review. (PDF), JPEG, bitmap (BMP), or other (Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the Summary: The rule requires part 119 similar electronic file formats; the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. certificate holders, entities conducting submission of records using coded L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies public aircraft operations, air tour XML; or the submission of specified from establishing standards or engaging operators, fractional ownerships, and information through direct manual data in related activities that create corporate flight departments to enter entry. unnecessary obstacles to the foreign relevant data on individuals employed While the submission of records in commerce of the United States. as pilots into the PRD. The records PDF, JPEG, BMP, or other similar Pursuant to these Acts, the entered into the PRD include those electronic file formats might be most establishment of standards is not related to: Pilot training, qualification, expedient and least costly 64 for some air considered an unnecessary obstacle to proficiency, or professional competence carriers and operators, the FAA rejected the foreign commerce of the United of the individual, including comments this option for multiple reasons. First, States, so long as the standard has a and evaluations made by a check pilot; the PRD ARC highlighted an issue with legitimate domestic objective, such as drug and alcohol testing; disciplinary the contents of historical records, the protection of safety, and does not action; release from employment or indicating that many historical records operate in a manner that excludes resignation, termination, or maintained by the aviation industry imports that meet this objective. The disqualification with respect to contain information ‘‘far outside’’ the statute also requires consideration of employment; and the verification of a scope of the PRD. The acceptance of international standards and, where query of the National Driver Register. such file formats (e.g., PDF, JPEG, or appropriate, that they be the basis for Use: The information collected in BMP) would allow a large volume of U.S. standards. This rule addresses a accordance with 44703(i) and extraneous data to be submitted to the Congressional mandate to promote the maintained in the Pilot Records PRD, possibly including protected or safety of the American public and it Database will be used by hiring air sensitive information on individuals or does not create an unnecessary obstacle carriers to evaluate the qualification of an air carrier or operator. The FAA to foreign commerce. an individual prior to making a hiring would be required to review each D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment determination for a pilot in accordance individual pilot record and redact with 44703(i)(1). information as appropriate. This review Title II of the Unfunded Mandates The FAA summarizes the changes in may cause the availability of the Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) burden hours and costs by subpart uploaded records to be delayed until requires each Federal agency to prepare relative to the interim compliance dates such time that the FAA could redact a written statement assessing the effects of the rule. As previously discussed, air inappropriate information, if any of any Federal mandate in a proposed or carriers and other operators currently existed within the file. final agency rule that may result in an comply with PRIA. The publication of In addition, the PRD should serve as expenditure of $100 million or more (in this rule begins the transition to use of an effective tool to assist an air carrier 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, the PRD. For a modest duration of time, or operator in making hiring decisions, local, and tribal governments, in the continued compliance with PRIA is not as a catch-all repository for all aggregate, or by the private sector; such required, to ensure appropriate, existing information maintained by a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant complete transition. The FAA also made employers of pilots, or as a replacement regulatory action.’’ changes to the regulatory text for The FAA currently uses an inflation- for existing air carrier and operator compliance dates and added interim adjusted value of $155.0 million in lieu recordkeeping systems. If an employer compliance markers in order to facilitate of $100 million. This rule does not transmitted scanned documents or a smooth transition. These changes are contain such a mandate; therefore, the photographs of a pilot’s record to the discussed further in Sections V.A.2 and requirements of Title II of the Unfunded PRD, a hiring employer could be V.E. Where practical the FAA presents Mandates Assessment Reform Act do overwhelmed by the amount of burden and costs over three years as not apply. information provided for review, some typically presented for estimates of of which might not be relevant to the E. Paperwork Reduction Act burden and costs for collections of information.65 hiring decision and could impede the The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 hiring employer’s ability to consider (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires agencies to 1. Subpart A General relevant information quickly and consider the impact of paperwork and efficiently. i. Section 111.15 Application for other information collection burdens Database Access The final alternative adopted is what imposed on the public. According to the was proposed in the NPRM with 1995 amendments to the Paperwork Air carriers and other operators changes, one of which reduces record Reduction Act (5 CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), subject to the rule will submit reporting requirements for PAO, air tour an agency may not collect or sponsor application for database access 90 days operators, and corporate flight the collection of information, nor may it after the publication of the rule. The impose an information collection 64 Submitting PDF, JPEG, BMP or similar 65 The FAA estimates the change in burden and electronic formats might be less costly because the requirement unless it displays a cost for these amendments over three years to align operator would not have to transcribe records from currently valid Office of Management with the three-year approval and renewal cycle for one format to another. and Budget (OMB) control number. most information collections.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 31056 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

table below presents the number of PRD, the estimated time it will take each persons registering, and the estimated users expected to apply for access to the user to register, the hourly rate of the hour burden for all users to register. TABLE 6—BURDEN FOR APPLICATION FOR DATABASE ACCESS *

Average Average Users expected to apply/register Respondents Hourly rate Time to Total costs Total hours costs hours register per year * per year *

Responsible persons ...... 5,033 $91.33 0.50 $229,832 2,517 $76,611 839 Pilots ...... 175,860 46.28 0.33 2,685,804 58,034 268,580 5,803 Authorized Individuals...... 10,066 91.33 0.50 459,664 5,033 153,221 1,678 Proxies ...... 1,904 91.33 0.50 86,946 952 28,982 317

Total ...... 192,863 ...... 3, 462,246 66,536 527,394 8,637 * Table Notes: See the Regulatory Impact Analysis available in the docket for details on the hourly rates and costs. Average costs and hours are three-year averages.

2. Subpart B—Accessing and Evaluating verification of motor vehicle driving As previously discussed, there are Records record search and evaluation. two methods for reporting data to the i. Section 111.240 Verification of Under the Pilot Records Improvement PRD. The first method is to transmit Motor Vehicle Driving Records Act (PRIA), operators are required to data electronically using an automated provide these records to another utility such as XML, so it can be read Air carriers and participating operator upon request; therefore, this by both the user and the PRD. The operators must be able to provide rule will not require collection of new second method is manual data entry supporting documentation to the information.66 This action contains using the same pre-established data Administrator upon request that a amendments to the existing information field forms for each record type. The search of the NDR was conducted, and collection requirements previously FAA estimated how many operators will that documentation must be kept for approved under OMB Control Number likely report data directly from their five years. The FAA considers this 2120–0607. Under this existing own electronic databases. The FAA also burden de minimis. information collection, which is estimated how many operators will 3. Subpart C—Reporting of Records by associated with PRIA and PRD, likely enter data manually to the PRD. Air Carriers and Operators operators are currently required to The following discussion summarizes Each operator will report to the PRD maintain certain records in accordance the estimates of the burden and the cost all records required by this subpart for with regulatory requirements and to of reporting records to the PRD. each individual employed as a pilot in maintain records that would be subject i. Present and Future Record Reporting the form and manner prescribed by the to PRIA in order to respond to PRIA Administrator. requests. Under this action, industry Air carriers and operators will incur Subpart C of part 111 requires all part would be required to report to the PRD a burden to transfer pilot records 119 certificate holders, fractional those records that they are already electronically from their databases to ownership operators, persons required to collect. Therefore, the FAA the PRD. The burden includes the time authorized to conduct air tour has determined that this action amends required for operators to develop an operations in accordance with 14 CFR the existing information collection only encoding program to transfer records 91.147, persons operating a corporate so far as to require submission of from their electronic databases via an flight department, entities conducting information to request access to the automated utility to appropriate fields public aircraft operations, and trustees database and electronic or manual within the PRD. in bankruptcy to enter relevant data on submission of the records already The following table presents the individuals employed as pilots into the collected by industry. We estimate that number of respondents (operators), PRD. Relevant data includes: Training, burden here. estimated hours, hourly rate, and the qualification and proficiency records; The rule requires that one year after cost of electronic reporting, for final disciplinary action records; records publication new records be reported to electronic reporting of present and concerning separation of employment; the PRD. New records are all records future records, both one-time burden drug and alcohol testing records; and generated as of that date. and annual updating burden. TABLE 7—ELECTRONIC REPORTING OF PRESENT AND FUTURE RECORDS *

Initial hours Initial cost Annual cost for Operator type Respondents Hours per Hourly rate for for electronic Annual respondent electronic electronic reporting/ hours reporting reporting year

Small 121 ...... 51 20 $120 $122,400 $76,500 340 1,020 Mid-size 121 ...... 13 35 75 34,125 19,500 152 260 Large 121 ...... 4 400 89 142,400 6,000 533 80

Total 121 ...... 68 455 ...... 298,925 102,000 1,025 1,360

Small 135 ...... 234 20 120 561,600 351,000 1,560 4,680 Mid-size 135 ...... 2 35 75 5,250 3,000 23 40

66 49 U.S.C. 44703(h).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31057

TABLE 7—ELECTRONIC REPORTING OF PRESENT AND FUTURE RECORDS *—Continued

Initial hours Initial cost Annual cost for Operator type Respondents Hours per Hourly rate for for electronic Annual respondent electronic electronic reporting/ hours reporting reporting year

Total 135 ...... 236 55 ...... 566,850 354,000 1,583 4,720

Small 125 ...... 18 20 120 43,200 27,000 120 360

Total 125 ...... 18 20 ...... 43,200 27,000 120 360

Part 91K ...... 4 1,897 95 720,800 6,000 2,529 80

Total 91K ...... 4 1,897 ...... 720,800 6,000 2,529 80

Total ...... 326 2,427 ...... 1,629,775 489,000 5,258 6,520 * Table Notes: See the Regulatory Impact Analysis available in the docket for more details. Estimates may not total due to rounding.

The following table summarizes the present and future pilot records to the burden and costs for operators to enter PRD manually.

TABLE 8—MANUAL ENTRY OF PRESENT AND FUTURE RECORDS

Type of operations Hours Cost Respondents

Part 121 ...... 141 $12,269 8 Part 135 ...... 6,993 609,006 1,817 Part 125 ...... 192 16,654 52 Air Tours ...... 16 1,464 1,091 Part 91K ...... 214 18,552 3 PAO ...... 21 1,831 323 Corporate Flight Department ...... 106 9,265 1,413

Total ...... 7,683 669,041 4,707

Average ...... 2,561 223,014 1,569

ii. Historical Record Reporting they have maintained back to August 1, operators with approved electronic 2005 through that date. Parts 125 and databases will transfer data The rule requires that historical 135 operators and 91K fractional electronically. The table below records will be reported to the PRD ownerships will report historical summarizes the number of respondents, beginning one year after publication of records they have maintained back to burden hours, and the one-time cost of the final rule. Parts 121 and 135 air August 1, 2010 through one year after electronic reporting. carriers will report historical records publication of the final rule. Those

TABLE 9—BURDEN OF ELECTRONIC REPORTING HISTORICAL RECORDS *

Electronic Electronic Type of operations/ Respondents Hours/ Hourly rate reporting reporting size groupings Respondent costs hours

Small 121 ...... 51 20 $120 $122,400 1,020 Mid-size 121 ...... 13 2,333 75 2,275,000 30,333 Large 121 ...... 4 6,774 89 2,411,500 32,154

Total part 121 (1) ...... 68 9,127 ...... 4,808,900 63,507

Small 135 ...... 226 20 $120 542,400 4,521 Mid-size 135 ...... 2 70 75 10,500 141

Total part 135 ...... 228 90 ...... $552,900 4,599

Small part 125 ...... 18 20 $120 43,200 360

Total part 125 ...... 18 20 ...... $43,200 360 Part 91K ...... 4 385 $95 146,200 1,539

Total Part 91K ...... 4 385 ...... $146,200 1,539

Total Burden ...... 318 9,622 ...... $5,551,200 70,068 * Table Notes: (1) Includes carriers certificated under both parts 121 and part 135. Estimates may not total due to rounding.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 31058 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

The following table summarizes the manually enter historical records to the burden and costs for operators to PRD.

TABLE 10—MANUAL ENTRY OF HISTORICAL RECORDS

Type of operations Respondents Total hours Total cost

Part 121 ...... 18 1,439,468 $71,025,356 Part 125 ...... 33 853 80,370 Part 135 ...... 1,912 95,354 9,162,087 Part 91K ...... 5 5,748 544,279

Total ...... 1,968 1,541,423 80,812,091

iii. Reporting Pilot Employment History form including a pull down menu through the menu, the pilot can add the In addition to operators reporting allowing access to air carriers, which name of the employer and fill in the pilot records, pilots will be required to should make it efficient for a pilot to data. The FAA estimates it will take a enter five years of employment history complete the employment history form. pilot an average of 2 minutes to at the time they give their consent for an If the former employer is on the list, the complete their employment history. The air carrier to review their records. The data prefills from FAA data. In the case following table shows total costs for PRD will provide the pilot an electronic that a former employer is not available pilots to enter their employment history.

TABLE 11—BURDEN AND COST FOR REPORTING PILOT EMPLOYMENT HISTORY

Time to Cost to complete complete Number of pilots Hourly rate employment employment history history

175,860 ...... $46.28 2 mins $271,293

iv. Request for Deviation affect safety. While the deviation is in report individual pilot records upon effect, the reporting operator would request manually to the PRD during the Operators may request a deviation report records upon request under PRIA. term of the delay in uploading those from the historical records reporting The FAA does not envision that it records electronically. based on a determination that a delay in would grant deviation authority past the The FAA estimates that one percent of compliance, due to circumstances sunset date of PRIA, but if that situation part 121 and part 135 operators may beyond control of the entity reporting were to occur, the FAA expects that an request such a deviation in years 2 and historical records, would not adversely operator would still be required to 3 after the publication of the final rule.

TABLE 12—DEVIATION REQUESTS

Operator type Respondents Hours Hourly rate Total hours Total cost

Part 121 ...... 0.76 2 $87.04 1.52 $132 Part 135 ...... 20.53 2 87.04 41.06 3,574

Total ...... 42.58 3,706

The following table summarizes the first three years after the publication total reporting burden and costs for the date of the rule. TABLE 13—BURDEN FOR FIRST THREE YEARS [After the publication of the rule] *

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total Section Respondents hours Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost

§ 111.15 Annual Registration burden ... 69,761 14,305 $1,045,051 5,803 $268,563 5,803 $268,563 25,911 $1,582,177 § 111.205(a) Reporting Present and Future Records: Electronic Reporting: Initial costs ...... 326 ...... 15,773 1,629,775 ...... 15,773 1,629,775 Annual costs ...... 326 ...... 6,520 489,000 6,520 489,000 13,040 978,000 Manual Data Entry: Annual costs...... 4,707 ...... 3,775 328,789 3,798 330,787 7,573 659,776 § 111.255 Historical Record Reporting: Electronic Reporting ...... 318 ...... 23,356 5,551,200 ...... 23,356 5,551,200 Manual Data Entry ...... 1,968 ...... 770,712 40,406,046 770,712 40,406,046 1,541,424 80,812,092

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31059

TABLE 13—BURDEN FOR FIRST THREE YEARS—Continued [After the publication of the rule] *

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total Section Respondents hours Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost

§ 111.310 Written consent (Employ- ment History)...... 17,586 ...... 5,862 27,129 5,862 27,129 11,724 54,259 § 111.255 Deviation request...... 2,129 ...... 43 3,706 43 3,706 85 7,412

Total ...... 97,121 14,305 1,045,051 831,843 48,704,408 792,738 41,525,231 1,638,886 91,274,691 * Estimates may not total due to rounding.

4. Effects of Reduced Burden From the of the proposed Pilot Records Database. year analysis of net burden and cost Discontinuation of the Pilot Records Once PRIA is discontinued there will be savings for the amended collection of Improvement Act cost savings, which are captured in the information once PRIA is discontinued. The PRIA will be discontinued three analysis associated with this final rule. years and 90 days after the effective date The following table provides a three TABLE 14—REDUCED BURDEN FROM DISCONTINUATION OF PILOT RECORDS IMPROVEMENT ACT *

Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Total Section Respondents Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost Hours Cost

§ 111.15 Annual Registration burden 52,758 5,803 $268,563 5,803 $268,563 5,803 $268,563 17,409 $805,689 § 111.205 Reporting Present and Fu- ture Records: Electronic Data Transfer ...... 326 6,520 489,000 6,520 489,000 6,520 489,000 19,560 1,467,000 Manual Data Entry ...... 4,707 3,881 337,996 3,894 339,100 3,904 340,097 11,679 1,017,193 § 111.310 Written Consent (Employ- ment History)...... 17,586 586 27,129 586 27,129 586 27,129 1,759 81,388

Total Cost...... 16,790 1,122,688 16,803 1,123,792 16,813 1,124,789 50,407 3,371,270 § 111.5 Discontinuation of PRIA— Total Savings...... 101,999 31,831 4,813,969 31,831 4,813,969 31,831 4,813,969 95,493 14,441,908

Net Total Savings ...... (15,041) (3,691,281) (15,028) (3,690,177) (15,018) (3,689,180) (45,087) (11,070,638) * Estimates may not total due to rounding.

Individuals and organizations may The FAA has determined this responsibilities among the various send comments on the information rulemaking action qualifies for the levels of government, and, therefore, collection requirement to the Office of categorical exclusion identified in does not have federalism implications. Management and Budget, Office of paragraph 5–6.6f and involves no B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations Information and Regulatory Affairs, extraordinary circumstances. That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Attention: Desk Officer for FAA, New H. Privacy Analysis Distribution, or Use Executive Building, Room 10202, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20053 The FAA conducted a privacy impact The FAA analyzed this final rule by July 12, 2021. assessment (PIA) in accordance with under Executive Order 13211, Actions section 208 of the E-Government Act of Concerning Regulations that F. International Compatibility and 2002, Public Law 107–347, 116 Stat. Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Cooperation 2889. The FAA examined the effect the Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The In keeping with U.S. obligations final rule may have on collecting, agency has determined that it is not a under the Convention on International storing, and disseminating personally ‘‘significant energy action’’ under the Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to identifiable information (PII) for use by executive order and it is not likely to conform to International Civil Aviation operators subject to this final rule in have a significant adverse effect on the Organization (ICAO) Standards and making hiring decisions. A copy of the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Recommended Practices to the PIA will be included in the docket for C. Executive Order 13609, Promoting maximum extent practicable. The FAA this rulemaking and will be available at International Regulatory Cooperation has determined no ICAO Standards and http://www.transportation.gov/privacy. Recommended Practices correspond to VII. Executive Order Determinations Executive Order 13609 promotes these proposed regulations. international regulatory cooperation to A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism meet shared challenges involving G. Environmental Analysis The FAA has analyzed this rule under health, safety, labor, security, FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA the principles and criteria of Executive environmental, and other issues and to actions that are categorically excluded Order 13132, Federalism. The Agency reduce, eliminate, or prevent from preparation of an environmental determined that this action will not unnecessary differences in regulatory assessment or environmental impact have a substantial direct effect on the requirements. The FAA has analyzed statement under the National States, or the relationship between the this action under the policies and Environmental Policy Act in the Federal Government and the States, or agency responsibilities of Executive absence of extraordinary circumstances. on the distribution of power and Order 13609 and has determined this

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 31060 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

action would have no effect on 14 CFR Part 111 111.1 Applicability. international regulatory cooperation. 111.5 Compliance date. Administrative practice and 111.10 Definitions. VIII. How To Obtain Additional procedure, Air carriers, Air taxis, 111.15 Application for database access. Information Aircraft, Airmen, Air operators, Alcohol 111.20 Database access. abuse, Aviation safety, Charter flights, 111.25 Denial of access. A. Rulemaking Documents Drug abuse, Public aircraft, Reporting 111.30 Prohibited access and use. An electronic copy of a rulemaking and recordkeeping requirements. 111.35 Fraud and falsification. document may be obtained by using the 111.40 Record Retention. The Amendment internet— Subpart B—Access to and Evaluation of 1. Search the Federal eRulemaking In consideration of the foregoing, the Records Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); Federal Aviation Administration 111.100 Applicability. 2. Visit the FAA’s Regulations and amends chapter I of Title 14, Code of 111.105 Evaluation of pilot records. Policies web page at http:// Federal Regulations as follows: 111.110 Motor vehicle driving record www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or request. 3. Access the Government Printing PART 11—GENERAL RULEMAKING 111.115 Good faith exception. Office’s web page at http:// PROCEDURES 111.120 Pilot consent and right of review. www.gpo.gov/fdsys/. 111.135 FAA records. ■ 1. The authority citation for part 11 Copies may also be obtained by Subpart C—Reporting of Records continues to read as follows: sending a request (identified by notice, 111.200 Applicability. amendment, or docket number of this Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40101, 111.205 Reporting requirements. rulemaking) to the Federal Aviation 40103, 40105, 40109, 40113, 44110, 44502, 111.210 Format for reporting information. Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 44701–44702, 44711, 46102, and 51 U.S.C. 111.215 Method of reporting. ARM–1, 800 Independence Avenue SW, 50901–50923. 111.220 Drug and alcohol testing records. Washington, DC 20591, or by calling ■ 2. Effective August 9, 2021, amend 111.225 Training, qualification, and (202) 267–9677. § 11.201 in the table in paragraph (b) by proficiency records. revising the entry for ‘‘Part 111’’ to read 111.230 Final disciplinary action records. B. Comments Submitted to the Docket 111.235 Final separation from employment as follows: records. Comments received may be viewed by § 11.201 Office of Management and Budget 111.240 Verification of motor vehicle going to http://www.regulations.gov and driving record search and evaluation. following the online instructions to (OMB) control numbers assigned under the Paperwork Reduction Act. 111.245 Special rules for protected records. search the docket number for this 111.250 Correction of reported information action. Anyone is able to search the * * * * * and dispute resolution. electronic form of all comments (b) * * * 111.255 Reporting historical records to received into any of the FAA’s dockets PRD. 14 CFR part or section Current OMB by the name of the individual identified and described control No. Subpart D—Pilot Access and submitting the comment (or signing the Responsibilities comment, if submitted on behalf of an 111.300 Applicability. association, business, labor union, etc.). ***** 111.305 Application for database access. Part 111 ...... 2120–0607 C. Small Business Regulatory 111.310 Written consent. 111.315 Pilot right of review. Enforcement Fairness Act ***** 111.320 Reporting errors and requesting The Small Business Regulatory corrections. Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40101, 1996 requires the FAA to comply with FLIGHT RULES 40113, 44701, 44703, 44711, 46105, 46301. small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes ■ 3. The authority citation for part 91 Subpart A—General and regulations within its jurisdiction. continues to read as follows: § 111.1 Applicability. A small entity with questions regarding Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40101, (a) This part prescribes rules this document may contact its local 40103, 40105, 40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, FAA official, or the person listed under 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, governing the use of the Pilot Records the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, Database (PRD). heading at the beginning of the 46504, 46506–46507, 47122, 47508, 47528– (b) Except as provided in subsection preamble. To find out more about 47531, 47534, Pub. L. 114–190,130 Stat. 615 (c) of this section, this part applies to: (1) Each operator that holds an air SBREFA, visit http://www.faa.gov/ (49 U.S.C. 44703 note); articles 12 and 29 of carrier or operating certificate issued in regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_ the Convention on International Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180), (126 Stat. 11). accordance with part 119 of this chapter act/. and is authorized to conduct operations § 91.1051 [Removed] List of Subjects under part 121, 125, or 135 of this ■ 4. Effective September 9, 2024, chapter. 14 CFR Part 11 § 91.1051 is removed. (2) Each operator that holds Administrative practice and ■ 5. Effective September 8, 2021, add management specifications for a procedure, Reporting and recordkeeping part 111 to subchapter G to read as fractional ownership program issued in requirements. follows: accordance with subpart K of part 91 of this chapter. 14 CFR Part 91 PART 111—PILOT RECORDS (3) Each operator that holds a letter of Air taxis, Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation DATABASE authorization issued in accordance with safety, Charter flights, Public aircraft, § 91.147 of this chapter. Reporting and recordkeeping Subpart A—General (4) Each operator that operates two or requirements. Sec. more aircraft described in paragraph

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31061

(b)(4)(i) or (ii) of this section, in responsible person to access the PRD on including its responsible person, furtherance of or incidental to a behalf of the employer for purposes of authorized users, and proxies. business, solely pursuant to the general reporting and evaluating records that Responsible person means the operating and flight rules in part 91 of pertain to an individual pilot applicant. individual identified on the application this chapter, or that operates aircraft Begin service as a pilot means the required by § 111.15 and who meets at pursuant to a Letter of Deviation earliest date on which a pilot serves as least one of the criteria in § 111.15(e). Authority issued under § 125.3 of this a pilot flight crewmember or is assigned Reviewing entity means operator that chapter. duties as a pilot in flight for an operator is subject to the applicability of subpart (i) Standard airworthiness airplanes or entity that is subject to the B of part 111, including its responsible that require a type rating under applicability of this part. person, authorized users, and proxies. § 61.31(a) of this chapter. Final disciplinary action record § 111.15 Application for database access. (ii) Turbine-powered rotorcraft. means a last-in-time record of corrective (5) Each entity that conducts public or punitive action taken by an operator (a) Each operator, entity, or trustee to aircraft operations as defined in 49 or entity who is subject to the which this part applies must submit an U.S.C. 40102(a)(41) on a flight that applicability of this part in response to application for access to the PRD in the meets the qualification criteria for an event pertaining to pilot form and manner prescribed by the public aircraft status in 49 U.S.C. 40125, performance. No disciplinary action is Administrator by September 8, 2021. unless the entity is any branch of the considered final until the operator (b)(1) Each operator or entity to which United States Armed Forces, National determines the action is not subject to this part applies that plans to initiate Guard, or reserve component of the any pending dispute. operations after September 8, 2021, must submit the application required by Armed Forces. Final separation from employment this section to the FAA at least 30 days (6) Each trustee in bankruptcy of any record means a last-in-time record of before the operator or entity initiates operator or entity described in this any action ending the employment aircraft operations. paragraph, subject to the following relationship between a pilot and an (2) Within 30 days of appointment by criteria: operator or entity who is subject to the a bankruptcy court as described in (i) If any operator subject to the applicability of this part. No separation § 111.1(b)(6)(i), a trustee must submit requirements of this subpart files a from employment is considered final the application required by this section petition for protection under the Federal until the operator determines the or receive delegation of access from the bankruptcy laws, the trustee appointed separation is not subject to any pending applicable operator or entity. by the bankruptcy court must comply dispute. with the requirements of subparts A and (c) The application required by this Historical record means a record that section must contain the following C of this part. an operator subject to the applicability (ii) The operator may delegate its information: of Subpart C of this part must generate (1) The full name, job title, telephone authority to the trustee appointed by the and maintain in accordance with 49 bankruptcy court to access the PRD on number, and electronic mail address of U.S.C. 44703(h)(4) and must report to the responsible person who is its behalf in accordance with § 111.20 or the PRD in accordance with 49 U.S.C. the trustee may submit an application to authorized to submit the application in 44703(i)(15)(C)(iii). accordance with paragraph (d) of this the FAA requesting access to the PRD PRD Date of Hire means: consistent with the requirements of section; (1) The earliest date on which an (2) The name of the operator, entity, § 111.15. individual: (7) Each person that submits or is or trustee; (i) Begins any form of required (3) The FAA air carrier or operating identified on the application described training in preparation for the in § 111.15 and is approved by the certificate number, as applicable; and individual’s service as a pilot on behalf (4) Any other item the Administrator Administrator to access the PRD. of an operator or entity subject to the (8) Each person who is employed as determines is necessary to verify the applicability of this part; or identity of all individuals designated by a pilot by, or is seeking employment as (ii) Performs any duty as a pilot for an a pilot with, an operator subject to the an operator, entity, or trustee to access operator or entity subject to the the PRD. applicability of this part. applicability of this part. (c) This part does not apply to foreign (d) The application required by this (2) This definition includes both section must be submitted by a air carriers or operators subject to part direct employment and employment 375 of this title. responsible person who holds at least that occurs on a contract basis for any one of the following positions, unless § 111.5 Compliance date. form of compensation. otherwise approved by the (a) Compliance with this part is Proxy means a person who is Administrator: required by September 9, 2024, except designated by a responsible person to (1) For each operator that holds an air as provided in §§ 111.15, 111.100, access the PRD on behalf of an operator, carrier or operating certificate issued in 111.200, and 111.255. entity, or trustee subject to the accordance with part 119 for operations (b) Beginning on September 9, 2024, applicability of this part for purposes of under part 121, a person serving in a the Pilot Records Improvement Act reporting or retrieving records. management position required by (PRIA) ceases to be effective and will Record pertaining to pilot § 119.65(a) of this chapter. not be an available alternative to PRD performance means a record of an (2) For each operator that holds an for operators, entities, or trustees to activity or event directly related to a operating certificate issued in which this subpart applies. pilot’s responsibilities or completion of accordance with part 119 for operations the core duties in conducting safe under part 125, a person serving in a § 111.10 Definitions. aircraft operations, as assigned by the management position required by For purposes of this part, the term— operator employing the pilot. § 125.25(a) of this chapter. Authorized user means an individual Reporting entity means an operator, (3) For each operator that holds an who is employed by an operator, entity, entity, or trustee that is subject to the operating certificate issued in or trustee and who is designated by a applicability of subpart C of part 111, accordance with part 119 for operations

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 31062 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

under part 135 using more than one § 111.20 Database access. the privacy of the pilot as to those pilot in its operations, a person serving (a) Delegation. The responsible person records. in a management position required by may delegate PRD access to authorized § 111.35 Fraud and falsification. § 119.69(a) of this chapter. users or proxies for purposes of (4) For each operator that holds an compliance by the operator, entity, or No person may make, or cause to be operating certificate issued in trustee with the requirements of subpart made, a fraudulent or intentionally false accordance with part 119 for operations B or C of this part. statement, or conceal or cause to be under part 135 authorized to use only (b) Terms for access. No person may concealed a material fact, in— one pilot in its operations, the pilot use the PRD for any purpose other than (a) Any application or any named in that certificate holder’s to inform a hiring decision concerning amendment to an application submitted operation specifications. a pilot or to report information on behalf in accordance with the requirements of (5) For each operator that holds a of the operator, entity, or trustee. this part; letter of authorization issued in (c) Continuing access for authorized (b) Any other record reported to the accordance with § 91.147 of this users and proxies. PRD access by PRD in accordance with the chapter, an individual designated as the authorized users and proxies is requirements of this part; or responsible person on the operator’s contingent on the continued validity of (c) Any record or report that is kept, letter of authorization. the responsible person’s electronic made, or used to show compliance with (6) For each operator that holds access. If a responsible person’s this part. management specifications for a electronic access is cancelled, the § 111.40 Record retention. fractional ownership program issued in database access of authorized users and accordance with subpart K of part 91 of proxies will be cancelled unless the (a) The Administrator will maintain a this chapter, an authorized individual operator, entity, or trustee submits an pilot’s records in the PRD for the life of designated by the fractional ownership amended application for database access the pilot. Any person requesting program manager, as defined in and receives FAA approval of that removal of the records pertaining to an § 91.1001(b) of this chapter, who is application in accordance with § 111.15. individual pilot must notify the FAA of employed by the fractional ownership the pilot’s death in a form and manner § 111.25 Denial of access. program and whose identity the acceptable to the Administrator. Administrator has verified. (a) The Administrator may deny PRD (b) The notification must include the following: (7) For any other operator or entity access to any person for failure to subject to the applicability of this part, comply with any of the duties or (1) The full name of the pilot as it or any trustee appointed in a responsibilities prescribed by this part appears on his or her pilot certificate; bankruptcy proceeding, an individual or as necessary to preserve the security (2) The pilot’s FAA-issued certificate authorized to sign and submit the and integrity of the database, which number; and application required by this section who includes but is not limited to— (3) A certified copy of the individual’s is employed by the operator and whose (1) Making a fraudulent or certificate of death. identity the Administrator has verified. intentionally false report of information to the database; or Subpart B—Access to and Evaluation (e) Each operator, entity, or trustee of Records must submit to the FAA— (2) Misusing or misappropriating user rights or protected information in the (1) An amended application for § 111.100 Applicability. database. database access no later than 30 days (b) The Administrator may deny any (a) This subpart prescribes after any change to the information operator or entity access to the PRD if requirements for the following included on the initial application for the Administrator revokes or suspends reviewing entities: database access occurs, except when the the operating certificate or other (1) Each operator that holds an air change pertains to the identification or authorization to operate. carrier or operating certificate issued by designation of the responsible person. (c) Any person whose access to the the Administrator in accordance with (2) An amended application database has been denied by the part 119 of this chapter and is identifying another responsible person Administrator may submit a request for authorized to conduct operations under eligible for database access in reconsideration of the denial in a form part 121, part 125, or part 135 of this accordance with this section, and manner the Administrator provides. chapter. immediately when the operator, entity, Database access will not be permitted (2) Each operator that holds or trustee is aware of information that pending reconsideration. management specifications to operate in would cause the current responsible accordance with subpart K of part 91 of person’s database access to be cancelled § 111.30 Prohibited access and use. this chapter. or denied. (a) No person may access the database (3) Each operator that holds a letter of (f) Upon approval by the FAA of a for any purpose other than the purposes authorization to conduct air tour request for access to the PRD, each provided by this part. operations in accordance with § 91.147 person identified in paragraph (e) is (b) No person may share, distribute, of this chapter. authorized to: publish, or otherwise release any record (b) Compliance with this subpart is (1) Access the database for purposes accessed in the database to any person required beginning June 10, 2022, consistent with the provisions of this or individual not directly involved in except compliance with § 111.105(b)(1) part, on behalf of the operator, entity, or the hiring decision, unless specifically is required beginning December 7, 2021. trustee for which the person is authorized by law or unless the person (c) If an operator described in authorized, for purposes consistent with sharing or consenting to share the § 111.1(b)(4) or an entity described in the provisions of this part; and record is the subject of the record. § 111.1(b)(5) accesses the PRD to review (2) Delegate PRD access to authorized (c) Each person that accesses the PRD records in accordance with this subpart, users and proxies in accordance with to retrieve a pilot’s records must protect the operator or entity must comply with § 111.20. the confidentiality of those records and § 111.120.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31063

§ 111.105 Evaluation of pilot records. (c) Upon the Administrator’s request, (c) Records related to enforcement (a) Except as provided in § 111.115, each reviewing entity must provide actions resulting in a finding by the no reviewing entity may permit an documentation showing the reviewing Administrator, which was not individual to begin service as a pilot entity has conducted the search subsequently overturned, of a violation until the reviewing entity has evaluated required by paragraph (a). The of title 49 of the United States Code or all relevant information in the PRD. reviewing entity must retain this a regulation prescribed or order issued (b) Evaluation must include review of documentation for five years. under that title. all of the following information (d) This section does not apply to (d) Records related to an individual pertaining to that pilot: operators described in § 111.100(a)(2) acting as pilot in command or second in (1) All FAA records in the PRD as through (3). command during an aviation accident or described in § 111.135. § 111.115 Good faith exception. incident. (2) All records in the PRD submitted Reviewing entities may allow an (e) Records related to an individual’s by a reporting entity. individual to begin service as a pilot pre-employment drug and alcohol (3) All motor vehicle driving records without first evaluating records in testing history and other U.S. obtained in accordance with § 111.110. accordance with § 111.105 only if the Department of Transportation drug and (4) The employment history the pilot reviewing entity— alcohol testing including: provides to the PRD in accordance with (a) Made a documented, good faith (1) Verified positive drug test results; subpart D of this part. If, upon review attempt to access all necessary (2) Alcohol misuse violations, of the employment history provided by information maintained in the PRD that including confirmed alcohol results of the pilot and the records described in the reviewing entity is required to 0.04 or greater; and (b)(2) of this section, a reviewing entity evaluate; and (3) Refusals to submit to drug or determines that records might be (b) Received notice from the alcohol testing. available that the pilot’s previous Administrator that information is employer has not yet uploaded in the missing from the PRD pertaining to the Subpart C—Reporting of Records by database, the reviewing entity must individual’s employment history as a Air Carriers and Operators submit a request to the pilot’s previous pilot. employer(s) through the PRD to report § 111.200 Applicability. § 111.120 Pilot consent and right of (a) This subpart prescribes the any applicable records in accordance review. with the process in § 111.215(b). requirements for reporting records to the (a) No reviewing entity may retrieve PRD about individuals employed as § 111.110 Motor vehicle driving record records in the PRD pertaining to any pilots and applies to the following request. pilot prior to receiving that pilot’s reporting entities: written consent authorizing the release (a) Except as provided in paragraph (1) Each operator that holds an air of that pilot’s information maintained in (d) of this section, no reviewing entity carrier or operating certificate issued in may permit an individual to begin the PRD. (b) The consent required in paragraph accordance with part 119 of this chapter service as a pilot unless the reviewing and is authorized to conduct operations entity has requested and evaluated all (a) of this section must be documented by that pilot in accordance with under part 121, 125, or 135 of this relevant information identified through chapter. a National Driver Register (NDR) search § 111.310. (c) Any pilot who submits written (2) Each operator that holds set forth in chapter 303 of Title 49 management specifications to operate in concerning the individual’s motor consent to a reviewing entity in accordance with § 111.310(c) may accordance with subpart K of part 91 of vehicle driving history in accordance this chapter. with the following: request a copy of any State motor vehicle driving records the reviewing (3) Each operator that holds a letter of (1) The reviewing entity must obtain entity obtained regarding that pilot in authorization to conduct air tour the written consent of that individual, accordance with § 111.110. The operations in accordance with § 91.147 in accordance with § 111.310, before reviewing entity must provide to the of this chapter. requesting an NDR search for the pilot all copies of State motor vehicle (4) Each operator described in individual’s State motor vehicle driving driving records obtained within 30 days § 111.1(b)(4). records; of receiving the request from that pilot. (2) After obtaining the written consent (5) Each entity that conducts public aircraft operations as described in of the individual, the reviewing entity § 111.135 FAA records. § 111.1(b)(5). must submit a request to the NDR to No reviewing entity may permit an determine whether any State maintains (6) The trustee in bankruptcy of any individual to begin service as a pilot operator described in this section. relevant records pertaining to that unless a responsible person or (b) Compliance dates for this subpart individual; and authorized user has accessed and are as follows: (3) When the NDR search result is evaluated all relevant FAA records for returned, if the NDR search result that individual in the PRD, including: (1) For a reporting entity already indicates that records exist concerning (a) Records related to current pilot conducting operations on June 10, 2022, that individual, the reviewing entity and medical certificate information, compliance with this subpart is required must submit a request for the relevant including associated type ratings and beginning June 10, 2022. motor vehicle driving records to each information on any limitations to those (2) For a reporting entity that initiates chief driver licensing official of each certificates and ratings. operations after June 10, 2022, State identified in the NDR search (b) Records maintained by the compliance with this subpart is required result. Administrator concerning any failed within 30 days of the reporting entity (b) Each reviewing entity must attempt of an individual to pass a commencing aircraft operations. document in the PRD that the reviewing practical test required to obtain a (3) Specific compliance dates for entity complied with this section, as certificate or type rating under part 61 historical records are set forth in prescribed at § 111.240. of this chapter. § 111.255.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 31064 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

§ 111.205 Reporting requirements. operator, entity, or trustee must provide this chapter and 49 CFR (a) Each reporting entity must provide written confirmation within 14 of the 40.333(a)(1)(iii); the information required in paragraph days of the request to the PRD that no (iv) All return-to-duty alcohol test (b) of this section for any individual records are available. results, that the employer must retain in employed as a pilot beginning on the (3) An operator, entity, or trustee must accordance with 49 CFR 40.333(a)(1)(i) PRD date of hire for that individual. retain a record eligible to be reported or (iii) or (a)(4); (b) Each reporting entity must report upon request under paragraph (b)(1) of (v) All follow-up alcohol test results, the following records to the PRD for this section for five years from the date which the employer must retain in each individual employed as a pilot: of creation, unless the operator or entity accordance with 49 CFR 40.333(a)(1)(v). (1) All records described in already reported that record to the PRD. (b) Each record reported to the PRD in §§ 111.220 through 111.240 generated (c) For records created before June 10, accordance with paragraph (a) of this on or after June 10, 2022; 2022, and maintained in accordance section must include the following: (2) All historical records required by with PRIA, an operator, entity, or trustee (1) In the case of a drug or alcohol test § 111.255 of this part, as applicable; and listed in paragraph (b) of this section result: (3) The PRD date of hire. must continue to maintain all records (i) The type of test administered; (c) No person may enter or cause to that would have been provided in (ii) The date the test was be entered into the PRD any information response to a PRIA request for five years administered; and (iii) The result of the test. described in § 111.245. from the date of creation of the record, (2) In the case of alcohol misuse, as and must report that record upon § 111.210 Format for reporting described in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this request from a reviewing entity in information. section: Each reporting entity must report to accordance with paragraph (b). (i) The type of each alcohol misuse the PRD all records required by this § 111.220 Drug and alcohol testing violation; subpart for each individual the records. (ii) The date of each alcohol misuse reporting entity employed as a pilot in (a) Each operator or trustee required violation. a form and manner prescribed by the to comply with part 120 of this chapter (c) In addition to the requirements of Administrator. and subject to the applicability of this §§ 120.113(d)(3) and 120.221(c), operators required to report in § 111.215 Method of reporting. subpart must report to the PRD the following records for each individual accordance with this section must (a) Except as provided in paragraph report records within 30 days of the (b) of this section of this part, all records whom the reporting entity has employed as a pilot: following occurrences, as applicable: created on or after June 10, 2022, and (1) The date of verification of the drug (1) Records concerning drug testing, required to be reported to the PRD test result; under this subpart must be reported including— (2) The date of the alcohol test result; within 30 days of the effective date of (i) Any drug test result verified (3) The date of the refusal to submit the record, or within 30 days of the positive by a Medical Review Officer, to testing; or record becoming final when the record that the Medical Review Officer and (4) The date of the alcohol misuse is a disciplinary action record or a employer must retain in accordance occurrence. separation from employment record. with § 120.111(a)(1) of this chapter and (b) Each operator conducting an 49 CFR 40.333(a)(1)(ii); § 111.225 Training, qualification, and operation described in § 111.1(b)(4), (ii) Any refusal to submit to drug proficiency records. entity conducting a public aircraft testing or records indicating substituted (a) Except as provided in paragraph operation, operator conducting an air or adulterated drug test results, which (b) of this section, each reporting entity tour operation under § 91.147, or a the employer must retain in accordance must provide to the PRD the following trustee for such an operator or entity with 49 CFR 40.333(a)(1)(iii); records for each individual whom the must either comply with paragraph (a) (iii) All return-to-duty drug test reporting entity has employed as a pilot: of this section or report and retain pilot results verified by a Medical Review (1) Records establishing an records in accordance with all Officer, that the employer must retain in individual’s compliance with FAA- requirements of this paragraph. accordance with 49 CFR 40.333(a)(1)(ii) required training, qualifications, and (1) Operators, entities, or trustees or (iii) or (a)(4); proficiency events, which the reporting listed in this paragraph (b) must report (iv) All follow-up drug test results entity maintains pursuant to a record described in § 111.225, verified by a Medical Review Officer, § 91.1027(a)(3), § 121.683, § 125.401 or § 111.230, or § 111.235 to the PRD upon which the employer must retain in § 135.63(a)(4) of this chapter, as receipt of a request from a reviewing accordance with 49 CFR 40.333(a)(1)(v). applicable, including comments and entity within 14 days, unless the record (2) Records concerning alcohol evaluations made by a check pilot or memorializes one or more of the misuse, including— evaluator; and following: (i) A test result with a confirmed (2) Other records the reporting entity (i) A disciplinary action that resulted breath alcohol concentration of 0.04 or maintains documenting an individual’s in permanent or temporary removal of greater, which the employer must retain compliance with FAA or employer- the pilot from aircraft operations as in accordance with § 120.219(a)(2)(i)(B) required training, checking, testing, described in § 111.230, which must be of this chapter; proficiency, or other events related to reported in accordance with paragraph (ii) Any record pertaining to an pilot performance concerning the (a) of this section. occurrence of on-duty alcohol use, pre- training, qualifications, proficiency, and (ii) A separation from employment duty alcohol use, or alcohol use professional competence of the action resulting from a termination as following an accident, which the individual, including any comments described in § 111.235, which must be employer must retain in accordance and evaluations made by a check pilot reported in accordance with paragraph with § 120.219(a)(2)(i)(D) of this chapter; or evaluator. (a) of this section. (iii) Any refusal to submit to alcohol (b) No person may report any of the (2) If no records are available at time testing, that the employer must retain in following information for inclusion in of request from a reviewing entity, the accordance with § 120.219(a)(2)(i)(B) of the PRD:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31065

(1) Records related to flight time, duty authority to review employment records for each individual whom the time, and rest time. disputes, or by any court of law. reporting entity has employed as a pilot: (2) Records demonstrating compliance (c) If a reporting entity receives notice (1) Records concerning separation with physical examination requirements that any disciplinary action record from employment kept pursuant to or any other protected medical records. reported to the PRD under paragraph (a) § 91.1027(a)(3), § 121.683, § 125.401 or (3) Records documenting recent flight of this section was overturned in § 135.63(a)(4) of this chapter; and experience. accordance with paragraph (b), that (2) Records pertaining to pilot (4) Records identified in § 111.245. entity must correct the pilot’s PRD performance kept concerning separation (c) Each record reported to the PRD in record in accordance with § 111.250 from employment for each pilot that it accordance with paragraph (a) of this within 10 days. employs. section must include: (d) Each final disciplinary action (b) No person may report to the PRD (1) Date of the event; record that must be reported to the PRD any record regarding separation from (2) Aircraft type, if applicable; under paragraph (a) of this section must employment that was subsequently (3) Duty position of the pilot, if include the following information: overturned because the event prompting applicable; (1) The type of disciplinary action the action did not occur or the pilot was (4) Training program approval part taken by the employer, including not at fault as determined by— and subpart of this chapter, as written warning, suspension, or (1) A documented agreement between applicable; termination; the employer and the pilot; or (5) Crewmember training and (2) Whether the disciplinary action (2) The official and final decision or qualification curriculum and category of resulted in permanent or temporary order of any panel or individual given training as reflected in either a FAA- removal of the pilot from aircraft authority to review employment approved or employer-mandated operations; disputes, or by any court of law. training program; (3) The date the disciplinary action (c) If a reporting entity receives notice (6) Result of the event (satisfactory or occurred; and that any separation from employment unsatisfactory); (4) Whether there are additional record reported to the PRD under (7) Comments of check pilot or documents available that are relevant to paragraph (a) of this section was evaluator, if applicable under part 91, the record. overturned in accordance with 121, 125, or 135 of this chapter. For (e) An operator, entity, or trustee paragraph (b) of this section, that entity unsatisfactory events, the tasks or complying with § 111.215(b) must must correct the pilot’s PRD record in maneuvers considered unsatisfactory report records described in paragraphs accordance with § 111.250 within 10 must be included. (a) through (d) of this section upon days. (d) An operator, entity, or trustee that request, unless the disciplinary action (d) Each separation from employment complies with § 111.215(b) must report resulted in permanent or temporary action record that must be reported to records in accordance with paragraphs removal of the pilot from aircraft the PRD in accordance with paragraph (a) through (c) of this section upon operations. If the disciplinary action (a) of this section must include a request, if that operator or entity resulted in permanent or temporary statement of the purpose for the possesses those records. removal of the pilot from aircraft separation from employment action, (e)(1) Each reporting entity must operations, the operator, entity, or including: provide a record within 30 days of trustee must report the record in (1) Whether the separation resulted creating that record, in accordance with accordance with § 111.215(a). from a termination as a result of pilot § 111.215(a), unless the reporting entity (f)(1) A reporting entity must provide performance, including professional is an operator, entity, or trustee records of final disciplinary actions no disqualification; complying with § 111.215(b). later than 30 days after the action is (2) Whether the separation is based on (2) An operator, entity, or trustee final, unless the reporting entity is an another reason, including but not complying with § 111.215(b) must operator, entity or trustee complying limited to physical (medical) provide records described in this with § 111.215(b). disqualification, employer-initiated section or a statement that it does not (2) An operator, entity or trustee separation not related to pilot have any records described in this complying with § 111.215(b) must performance, or any resignation, section within 14 days of receiving a report records described in this section, including retirement; request from a reviewing entity. or state that it does not have any (3) The date of separation from employment; and § 111.230 Final disciplinary action records. applicable records, within 14 days of receiving a request from a reviewing (4) Whether there are additional (a) Except as provided in paragraph entity. documents available that are relevant to (b) of this section, each reporting entity (g) Each reporting entity must: the record. must provide to the PRD any final (1) Retain documents relevant to the (e) An operator, entity, or trustee disciplinary action record pertaining to record reported under paragraph (a) of complying with § 111.215(b) must pilot performance with respect to an this section for five years, if available; report the records described in individual whom the reporting entity and paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section has employed as a pilot. (2) Provide such documents upon upon request, unless the separation (b) No person may report to the PRD request within 14 days to: from employment action resulted from a any record of disciplinary action that (i) A reviewing entity; or termination. If the separation from was subsequently overturned because (ii) The pilot that is the subject of the employment record resulted from a the event prompting the action did not record. termination, the operator, entity, or occur or the pilot was not at fault as trustee must report the record in determined by— § 111.235 Final separation from accordance with § 111.215(a). (1) A documented agreement between employment records. (f)(1) A reporting entity must provide the employer and the pilot; or (a) Except as provided in paragraph any records of separation from (2) The official and final decision or (b) of this section, each reporting entity employment actions no later than 30 order of any panel or person with must provide to the PRD the following days after the date of separation from

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 31066 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations

employment is final, unless the § 111.255 Reporting historical records to (vi) Justification for the request for reporting entity is an operator, entity, or PRD. deviation, including a description of the trustee complying with § 111.215(b). (a) Each operator that holds an air circumstance referenced in (g)(1). (2) An operator, entity, or trustee carrier certificate issued in accordance (3) Operators and trustees granted complying with § 111.215(b) must with part 119 of this chapter and is deviation in accordance with this report records described in this section authorized to conduct operations under paragraph must continue to retain or state that it does not have any part 121 or part 135 of this chapter must historical records and respond to applicable records within 14 days of report to the PRD all historical records requests for such records for the term of receiving a request from a reviewing kept in accordance with PRIA dating that deviation in a form and manner entity. from August 1, 2005 until June 10, 2022, prescribed by the Administrator. (g) Each reporting entity must: in a form and manner prescribed by the (4) The Administrator may, at any (1) Retain documents relevant to the Administrator. time, terminate a grant of deviation record reported under paragraph (a) of (b) Each operator that holds an issued under this paragraph. this section for five years, if available; operating certificate issued in and accordance with part 119 of this chapter Subpart D—Pilot Access and (2) Provide such documents upon and is authorized to conduct operations Responsibilities request within 14 days to: under part 121, 125, or 135 of this § 111.300 Applicability. (i) A reviewing entity; or chapter or that holds management (ii) The pilot that is the subject of the specifications to operate in accordance This subpart applies to each record. with subpart K of part 91 of this chapter individual who is employed as a pilot must report to the PRD all historical by, or is seeking employment as a pilot § 111.240 Verification of motor vehicle with, an operator or entity subject to the driving record search and evaluation. records kept in accordance with PRIA dating from August 1, 2010, until June applicability of this part, as set forth in (a) Each operator subject to the § 111.1. requirements of § 111.110 of this part 10, 2022, in a form and manner must document in the PRD within 45 prescribed by the Administrator. § 111.305 Application for database access. days of the pilot’s PRD date of hire that (c) If an operator required to report (a) A pilot must request electronic the operator met the requirements of historical records to the PRD in access to the PRD by submitting an § 111.110. accordance with this section is application in a form and manner (b) No operator may report any appointed a trustee in a bankruptcy acceptable to the Administrator. Except substantive information from State proceeding, the trustee must report the as provided in § 111.315(c), electronic motor vehicle driving records pertaining operator’s historical records. access to the PRD is required when— to any individual obtained in (d) Compliance for reporting (1) The pilot seeks to review and accordance with § 111.110 for inclusion historical records that date on or after obtain a copy of that pilot’s own in the PRD. January 1, 2015, is required by June 12, comprehensive PRD record; 2023. Compliance for records that date (2) The pilot gives consent to a § 111.245 Special rules for protected before January 1, 2015, is required by records. particular operator to access that pilot’s September 9, 2024. comprehensive PRD record; or No person may report any pilot record (e) An operator or trustee subject to for inclusion in the PRD that was (3) The pilot exercises any other the applicability of this subpart must privileges provided by this part. reported by any individual as part of maintain all historical records reported any approved Voluntary Safety (b) The application required in to the PRD in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section must Reporting Program for which the FAA paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section for has designated reported information as include, at a minimum, the following at least five years after reporting those information: protected in accordance with part 193 of records. this chapter. (1) The pilot’s full name as it appears (f) An operator or trustee is not on his or her pilot certificate. § 111.250 Correction of reported required to report historical records for (2) The pilot’s FAA-issued certificate information and dispute resolution. any individual who is 99 years of age or number. (a) A reporting entity that discovers or older on June 10, 2022. (3) A current mailing address and is informed of a perceived error or (g)(1)The Administrator may telephone number. inaccuracy in information previously authorize a request for deviation from (4) An electronic mail address. reported to the PRD must correct that paragraph (d) of this section based on a (5) Any additional information that record in the PRD within 10 days of determination that a delay in the Administrator might request to identification, or initiate dispute compliance, due to circumstance verify the identity of the pilot requesting resolution in accordance with paragraph beyond control of the operatoror trustee access to the PRD. (b) of this section. reporting historical records, would not (c) The application required in (b) Each reporting entity must— adversely affect safety. paragraph (a) of this section must be (1) Initiate investigation of any (2) A request for deviation from submitted at least 7 days before the pilot dispute within 30 days of determining paragraph (d) of this section must seeks to access the PRD. that it does not agree that the record include the following information: identified is inaccurate. (i) The name of the operator or § 111.310 Written consent. (2) Provide final disposition within a trustee; (a) Before any operator may access a reasonable amount of time to any (ii) The name of the responsible pilot’s records in the PRD, that pilot request for dispute resolution made by person; must apply for access to the PRD in an individual about PRD records. (iii) The name of the pilot(s) who are accordance with § 111.305 and provide (3) Document in the PRD the final the subject of the record; written consent to the FAA for release disposition of any dispute made by a (iv) Historical record type for which of that pilot’s records to the operator, in pilot in accordance with this paragraph deviation is requested; a form and manner acceptable to the (b) and § 111.320. (v) Date range of records; and Administrator.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 110 / Thursday, June 10, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 31067

(b) Provision of consent must include § 111.10 [Amended] § 111.205 [Amended] an affirmation that the employment ■ 6. Effective September 10, 2029, ■ history of the pilot for five years 11. Effective September 9, 2024, amend § 111.10 by removing the amend § 111.205 by removing paragraph preceding the date of consent is accurate definition of ‘‘historical record’’. and complete. If the pilot finds the (b)(2) and redesignating paragraph (b)(3) employment history is not complete, the § 111.15 [Amended] as (b)(2). pilot must update the employment ■ 7. Effective October 8, 2021, amend ■ 12. Effective September 9, 2024, history to list all past employers. § 111.15 by removing paragraph (a) and amend § 111.215 by revising paragraph (c) Before an operator submits a redesignating paragraphs (b) through (f) (a) to read as follows: request to the NDR for an individual’s as paragraphs (a) through (e). motor vehicle driving record for § 111.215 Method of Reporting. purposes of compliance with § 111.110, § 111.100 [Amended] the individual must provide written (a) Except as provided in paragraph ■ 8. Effective June 10, 2022, amend consent specific to the NDR search. (b) of this section, all records required § 111.100 by removing paragraph (b) to be reported to the PRD under this § 111.315 Pilot right of review. and redesignating paragraph (c) as subpart must be reported within 30 days (a) Once a pilot has received paragraph (b). of the effective date of the record, or electronic access in accordance with ■ 9. Effective June 10, 2022, amend within 30 days of the record becoming § 111.305, the pilot may access the PRD § 111.200 by revising paragraph (b) to final when the record is a disciplinary to review all records pertaining to that read as follows: action record or a separation from pilot. employment record. (b) A pilot who submits written § 111.200 Applicability. consent to a reviewing entity in * * * * * * * * * * (b) Compliance is required for this accordance with § 111.310(c) may § 111.215 [Amended] request a copy of any State motor subpart as follows: vehicle driving records obtained by the (1) Compliance with this subpart is ■ 13. Effective September 8, 2027, reviewing entity in accordance with required within 30 days of the reporting further amend § 111.215 by removing § 111.110. entity commencing aircraft operations. paragraph (c). (c) A pilot may review all records (2) Specific compliance dates for contained in the PRD pertaining to that records described in § 111.205(b)(2) are § 111.255 [Removed] pilot, without accessing the PRD and set forth in § 111.255. ■ 14. Effective September 10, 2029, without obtaining electronic access * * * * * issued in accordance with § 111.305, § 111.255 is removed. ■ 10. Effective September 10, 2029, upon submission of a form provided by Issued in Washington, DC, under the the Administrator to confirm the pilot’s further amend § 111.200 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: authority of 49 U.S.C. 106(f), U.S.C. 106(f), identity. 106(g) 44701(a), 44703, 44711, 46105, and § 111.320 Reporting errors and requesting § 111.200 Applicability. 46301 on or about May 25, 2021. corrections. * * * * * Steve Dickson, A pilot who identifies an error or (b) Compliance with this subpart is Administrator, Federal Aviation inaccuracy in that pilot’s PRD records required beginning within 30 days of Administration. must report the error or inaccuracy to the reporting entity commencing aircraft [FR Doc. 2021–11424 Filed 6–9–21; 8:45 am] the PRD in a form and manner operations. BILLING CODE 4910–13–P acceptable to the Administrator. * * * * *

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:44 Jun 09, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\10JNR2.SGM 10JNR2 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2