[Federal Register: May 1, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 83)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 20263-20270]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01my09-11]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 135
[Docket No. FAA-2009-0023; Notice No. 09-02]
RIN 2120-AJ32
Crew Resource Management Training for Crewmembers in Part 135
Operations
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would require all certificate holders
conducting operations under part 135 to include in their training
programs crew resource management for crewmembers, including pilots and
flight attendants. This proposal is needed to ensure that crewmembers
in part 135 operations receive training and practice in the use of crew
resource management principles, as appropriate for their operation.
This proposed rule would respond to National Transportation Safety
Board (NTSB) recommendations, address a recommendation from the Part
125/135 Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC), and would codify current
FAA guidance. The intended effect of this proposal is to reduce the
frequency and severity of errors that are crew based, which will reduce
the frequency of accidents and incidents within the scope of part 135
operations.
DATES: Send your comments on or before July 30, 2009.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2009-
0023 using any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
Mail: Send comments to the Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-
140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery or Courier: Bring comments to the Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Operations at 202-493-
2251.
For more information on the rulemaking process, see the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://
DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
[[Page 20264]]
http://www.regulations.gov at any time and follow the online
instructions for accessing the docket, or to the Docket Operations in
Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this proposed rule, contact Nancy Lauck Claussen, Federal Aviation
Administration, Flight Standards Service, Air Transportation Division
(AFS-200), 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
Telephone: 202-267-8166; E-mail: nancy.l.claussen@faa.gov. For legal
questions concerning this proposed rule, contact Anne Bechdolt, Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of the Chief Counsel, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; Telephone: 202-267-3073; E-mail:
anne.bechdolt@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Later in this preamble under the Additional
Information section, we discuss how you can comment on this proposal
and how we will handle your comments. Included in this discussion is
related information about the docket, privacy, and the handling of
proprietary or confidential business information. We also discuss how
you can get a copy of related rulemaking documents.
Authority for This Rulemaking
The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code. This rulemaking is promulgated
under the authority described in 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), which requires
the Administrator to promulgate regulations and minimum standards for
other practices, methods, and procedures necessary for safety in air
commerce and national security.
Background
Crew Resource Management (CRM) training is the incorporation of
team management concepts in flight operations. This training focuses on
communication and interactions among pilots, flight attendants,
operations personnel, maintenance personnel, air traffic controllers,
flight service stations, and others. CRM also focuses on single pilot
communications, decision making, and situational awareness.
Consequently, CRM activities include team building, transfer of
information, problem solving, decision making, maintaining situational
awareness, and using automated systems. Training in these areas helps
to prevent errors such as runway incursions, misinterpreting
information from tower controllers, crewmembers' loss of situational
awareness, and crewmembers failing to fully prepare for takeoff or
landing.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), National Transportation
Safety Board (NTSB), and industry stakeholders have consistently
recognized the problems associated with poor decision making,
ineffective communication, inadequate leadership, and poor task or
resource management as major contributors to accidents and incidents
within the aviation industry. Effective CRM training for crewmembers is
a critical element in reducing accidents and incidents resulting from
these problems. This proposed rule would require all certificate
holders conducting part 135 operations that are required to have a
training program under 14 CFR 135.341 to implement CRM training for
crewmembers in part 135 dual and single-pilot operations.
Previous Crew Resource Management Training Rulemaking
On December 20, 1995, the FAA published Air Carrier and Commercial
Operator Training Programs. See 60 FR 65940. This final rule required
all certificate holders operating under part 121 to include CRM
training for crewmembers in their training programs. This requirement
also extended to certificate holders conducting operations under part
135 that are required to comply with part 121 training and
qualification requirements, such as those certificate holders that
conduct commuter operations with airplanes for which two pilots are
required by aircraft certification rules, and those that conduct
commuter operations with airplanes having a passenger seating
configuration of 10 seats or more. Today's proposed rule, which, if
adopted, would require all certificate holders conducting operations
under part 135 to include CRM training in their programs, continues the
precedent set by the December 20, 1995 final rule.
In considering this proposal to extend CRM training requirements to
cover part 135 operators, the FAA conducted a review of all accidents
involving airplanes and helicopters that occurred between March 20,
1997 (the compliance date for training and qualifying under part 121
for certain part 135 operators as set forth in the 1995 CRM final rule)
and March 7, 2008. The FAA initially identified 268 accidents in part
135 operations that may have been directly or indirectly related to
ineffective CRM. Upon further review, the FAA found that 24 of these
accidents were directly related to ineffective CRM. These 24 accidents
were responsible for 83 fatalities and 12 serious injuries. The causal
CRM factors in these accidents did not discriminate between dual and
single pilot operations: 14 accidents involved single pilots and 10
involved dual-pilot operations. The following accident histories,
identified during this review, signify the critical need to require CRM
training in both single and dual-pilot part 135 operations.
On October 25, 2002, a Raytheon (Beechcraft) King Air A100,
operating under the part 135 on-demand operation regulations, crashed
while the dual-pilot flight crew was attempting to execute a very high
frequency omnirange station (VOR) approach to runway 27 at Eveleth-
Virginia Municipal Airport, in Eveleth, Minnesota. In its final report
on the accident, the NTSB noted that the evidence clearly indicated
that neither flightcrew member was monitoring the airspeed indicator or
course deviation indicator during the approach. The NTSB found that if
the flightcrew had been adhering to the operator's approach procedures
and effectively applying CRM techniques in the cockpit, at least one of
the flightcrew members should have been monitoring the instruments
during the approach. The two pilots and six passengers were killed in
this accident. The airplane was also destroyed by impact forces and a
post-crash fire. See NTSB Aircraft Accident Report AAR-03/03 (Nov. 18,
2003).
On September 25, 1999, a single pilot operating an on-demand aerial
sightseeing tour crashed into the northeast slope of the Mauna Loa
volcano near Volcano, Hawaii. The NTSB determined that the accident was
caused by the pilot's decision to continue under visual flight rules
(VFR) into instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) in an area of
cloud-covered mountainous terrain. In addition, the NTSB found that the
pilot's failure to properly navigate and his disregard for standard
operating procedures, including flying into IMC while on a VFR flight
plan and failure to obtain a current preflight weather briefing, also
contributed to the accident. These issues are typically addressed in
CRM training. The pilot and all nine passengers were killed, and the
airplane was destroyed by impact forces and a post-impact fire. See
NTSB Aircraft Accident Report AAB-01-02 (Sept. 26, 2001).
On June 25, 1998, a single pilot operating an on-demand aerial
sightseeing tour crashed into a mountainside in Mt. Waialeale, Hawaii.
Three helicopters had departed on the
[[Page 20265]]
tour, with about 2 minutes between each departure. The company's most
experienced pilot was leading the tour, followed by the company's
second most-experienced pilot, and last, the accident pilot. The pilots
had not received a weather briefing from an FAA-approved source, as
required by the company's operations specifications. Throughout the
flight, the three pilots were in radio contact with each other. During
the flight, weather conditions worsened. The accident pilot became
disoriented, misjudged his location, and while cruising toward what he
believed was the prescribed crater entranceway, inadvertently entered
IMC and collided into the mountainside. The NTSB determined that the
probable cause of the accident was the failure of the lead pilot, who
had first observed the deteriorating weather conditions, to notify the
following pilots of the conditions and direct them to avoid the area.
The pilot and all five passengers were killed. See NTSB Accident Report
LAX98FA211 (May 17, 2001).
These three accidents were all the result of poor decision making,
a loss of situational awareness, a lack of communication between
multiple pilots or between pilots and other key operational personnel,
and inadequate leadership. Under this proposal, all of these issues
would be addressed in CRM initial and recurrent training.
National Transportation Safety Board Recommendations
In addition to addressing the issues identified in these accidents,
this proposed rule would respond to the following NTSB recommendations:
NTSB recommendation A-01-12 to require CRM training for all pilots
conducting part 135 on-demand operations in aircraft that require two
or more pilots; A-03-52, to require part 135 on-demand operators to
provide CRM training to all pilots conducting dual-pilot operations;
and A-95-124 to require certificate holders that conduct part 135
operations to provide flightcrew members, during initial and recurrent
training programs, with aeronautical decision-making and judgment
training that is tailored to the company's flight operations and
aviation environment. Further emphasizing the need for the FAA to
address CRM training in part 135 operations, on May 14, 2008, the NTSB
issued a letter to the FAA noting that recommendation A-03-52 remains
on its most wanted list of Transportation Safety Improvements.
This NPRM exceeds the requirements outlined in NTSB recommendation
A-03-52, which only addressed CRM training for dual-pilot operations in
part 135. These issues are not limited to dual-pilot operations, but
rather, as indicated by the accident review, extend to all operations.
Therefore, the FAA has decided it is necessary to require CRM training
for crewmembers conducting either dual-or single-pilot operations under
part 135.
Recommendations From the Part 135/125 Aviation Rulemaking Committee
(ARC)
This proposal is also based in part on recommendations submitted by
the Part 135/125 ARC, which was established on April 8, 2003. The ARC
recommended that all pilots in part 135 operations be proficient at
mastering the resources available to them while managing many
operational factors, such as communications with air traffic control,
advanced cockpit technology, weather services, managing time,
maintaining situational awareness, mitigating fatigue and stress, and
other factors. The FAA recognizes the importance of training in these
areas and has incorporated the ARC's suggestions in this regard.
In addition to the curriculum components, the Part 135/125 ARC
recommended CRM training for flight followers. The FAA, however, has
decided not to require CRM training for these individuals in this
proposal. Current regulations require flight locating in part 135
operations, but there is no associated training requirement for the
individuals that perform this function, typically referred to as
``flight followers.'' Furthermore, there are no requirements for
dispatchers in part 135 regulations. Therefore, while the FAA
recognizes the value and encourages the training of all operational
personnel regarding key CRM principles, this proposal does not include
CRM training requirements for flight followers or dispatchers in part
135 operations.
Current FAA Guidance
The proposed amendments also codify certain elements of FAA
guidance contained in Advisory Circular (AC) 120-51, Crew Resource
Management Training, and AC 00-64, Air Medical Resource Management, as
amended. These ACs present guidelines for developing, implementing,
reinforcing, and assessing CRM training for crewmembers and other
personnel essential to flight safety. The curriculum components and
training methodologies contained in these ACs are designed to become an
integral part of training and operations, and as such, have been
included in the rule as the basic curriculum components for every CRM
training program.
AC 120-51 and AC 00-64, as amended, also contain information
regarding recognition of fatigue and stress reduction. These ACs
suggest that training may include a review of scientific evidence on
fatigue and stress and their effects on performance in both normal
operations and emergency situations. These topics are appropriately
addressed in CRM training, which may also include training crewmembers
on identifying various countermeasures for coping with stressors,
recognition of cues that indicate lack or loss of situational
awareness, and training in countermeasures to restore that awareness.
General Discussion of the Proposal
Components of CRM Training
In the 1995 final rule, the FAA anticipated that for a CRM training
program to be approved, it would include three distinct components: (1)
Initial CRM training, during which CRM issues are defined and
discussed; (2) a recurrent practice and feedback component during which
trainees gain experience with CRM techniques; and (3) a continuing
reinforcement component which ensures that CRM principles are addressed
throughout the trainee's employment with the certificate holder. The
FAA continues to expect these three components in today's proposal.
Initial CRM training is a curriculum segment with a variety of
instructional methods, which can include lectures, discussions, videos,
and practice in an operational setting or a Line Oriented Flight
Training (LOFT) scenario, with feedback from an instructor. Under the
proposed rule, initial CRM training must be provided to crewmembers in
part 135 operations. At a minimum, the training should address the
authority of the pilot in command; communication processes; how to
build and maintain a flight team, manage workload and time, and
maintain situational awareness; recognizing and mitigating fatigue and
stress; and particular aeronautical decision-making skills tailored to
the certificate holder's operations. This training is in addition to
current training requirements for crewmembers under part 135.
Recurrent CRM training is best accomplished through the use of
operational, performance-based scenarios that provide an opportunity
for practice and feedback. Feedback should be directed by a facilitator
who has had appropriate CRM training and
[[Page 20266]]
can identify the CRM markers in a performance-based scenario. Practice
and feedback provide participants with opportunities to improve
communication, decision-making, and leadership skills.
Program Hours and Approval of Training Programs
Consistent with other part 135 training requirements, this proposal
does not establish required program hours. In evaluating and approving
part 135 CRM training programs, the FAA would consider instructional
techniques, the number of students in a class, the use of performance-
based scenarios, new training technology, the use of student feedback,
the measurement of training outcomes, as well as the number of hours of
training time.
Compliance Date
For initial CRM training, the FAA is proposing a compliance date 2
years after the effective date of the final rule. After the compliance
date, a certificate holder conducting part 135 operations would be
prohibited from using a crewmember unless that person has completed
approved initial CRM training. Since a large number of certificate
holder employees are required to have this training, the delayed
compliance date would allow sufficient time to train instructors who
will conduct CRM training, and then, in turn, provide this training to
all crewmembers. The delay in compliance is also necessary because most
of these operators may be classified as small businesses and may need
additional time to develop the training program.
Credit for Previous CRM Training
As part of the proposal, the FAA may credit some CRM training
received by crewmembers before the compliance date. Specifically, the
FAA would consider training aids, devices, methods, and procedures, in
accordance with AC 120-51 and AC 00-64, as amended, used by a
certificate holder in a voluntary CRM program included in a training
program required by 14 CFR 135.341, 135.345, or 135.349.
In addition, the FAA recognizes that many crewmembers in part 135
operations work for multiple part 135 operators throughout their
careers. In light of the uniform CRM curriculum components proposed in
this rule, the FAA has decided that it would be appropriate to credit
initial CRM training that a crewmember completed while working for one
part 135 operator toward the initial CRM training required by another
part 135 operator if the crewmember is able to provide appropriate
training records to his or her new employer.
Conclusion
Effective Crew Resource Management (CRM) training for crewmembers
is a critical element in the reduction of accidents and incidents. This
proposed rule would require certificate holders conducting operations
under part 135 to implement CRM training for crewmembers conducting
both dual and single-pilot operations. The intended effect is to reduce
accidents and incidents within the scope of part 135 operations. This
rule is supported by the NTSB findings and recommendations, long-
standing FAA guidance, and the precedent set in 1995 with the
promulgation of the final rule requiring a CRM training component for
certificate holders conducting operations under part 121, as well as
those part 135 operators that must operate under the rules of part 121.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposal contains the following new information collection
requirements. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
FAA has submitted the information requirements associated with this
proposal to the Office of Management and Budget for its review. See 44
U.S.C. 3507(d).
Title: Crew Resource Management Training for Crewmembers in Part
135 Operations.
Summary: This proposed rule would require CRM training for
crewmembers, in 14 CFR part 135 operations. This proposal is needed to
ensure that crewmembers in part 135 operations receive training and
practice in the use of CRM principles, as appropriate for their
operation. The intended effect of this proposal is to reduce the
frequency and severity of errors that are crew based, which will reduce
the frequency of accidents and incidents within the scope of part 135
operations.
Use of: This project is in direct support of the Department of
Transportation's Strategic Plan--Strategic Goal--SAFETY; i.e., to
promote the public health and safety by working toward the elimination
of transportation-related deaths and injuries. This request for
clearance reflects requirements necessary under Title 14 CFR part 135
to ensure safety-of-flight by making certain that complete and adequate
training is obtained and maintained by those who operate under this
part of the regulation. The FAA will use the information it collects
and reviews to ensure compliance and adherence to regulations and,
where necessary, to take enforcement action on violators of the
regulations.
Respondents (including number of): The FAA estimates there are
1,625 certificate holders who would be required to provide information
in accordance with the proposed rule. The respondents to this proposed
information requirement are certificate holders using the training
requirements in 14 CFR part 135.
Frequency: The FAA estimates certificate holders will have a one-
time information collection, and will then collect or report
information occasionally thereafter.
Annual Burden Estimate This proposal would result in a 10-year
recordkeeping and reporting burden as follows:
Summary of Time and Costs (10-Year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost Hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Development and submission of CRM $302,260.00 8,636.0
Training Program.......................
Crewmember Training Record Keeping...... 65,540.5 1,872.5
-------------------------------
Total............................... 367,800.50 10,508.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency is soliciting comments to--
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information requirement is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
[[Page 20267]]
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of collecting information on those who are
to respond, including by using appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms
of information technology.
Individuals and organizations may send comments on the information
collection requirement by July 30, 2009, and should direct them to the
address listed in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this
preamble. Comments also should be submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention:
Desk Officer for FAA, New Executive Building, Room 10202, 725 17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20053.
According to the 1995 amendments to the Paperwork Reduction Act (5
CFR 1320.8(b)(2)(vi)), an agency may not collect or sponsor the
collection of information, nor may it impose an information collection
requirement unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The OMB control number for this information collection will be
published in the Federal Register, after the Office of Management and
Budget approves it.
International Compatibility
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices
that correspond to these proposed regulations.
Economic Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination,
International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second,
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires
agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to
the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S.
standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider international
standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S.
standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs,
benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a
Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or
Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100
million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of
1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of
the economic impacts of this proposed rule. We suggest readers seeking
greater detail read the full regulatory evaluation, a copy of which we
have placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this
proposed rule: (1) Has benefits that justify its costs; (2) is not an
economically ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866; (3) is not ``significant'' as defined in
DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities;
(5) would not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of
the United States; and (6) would not impose an unfunded mandate on
state, local, or Tribal governments, or on the private sector by
exceeding the threshold identified above. These analyses are summarized
as follows.
Total Benefits and Costs of This Proposed Rule
The estimated cost of this proposed rule is $11.2 million, or $8
million in present value terms. An upper bound estimate of the
potential benefits would be a 25 percent reduction in part 135
accidents in which the lack of CRM training would be a causal factor,
and is estimated at about $121 million. If one accident could be
averted like the 2002 Beechcraft accident where the NTSB found
effective CRM techniques should have been followed, then the benefits
of this rule would easily exceed the costs.
Aviation Industry Affected
The proposed rule would affect operators of airplanes and
helicopters and crewmembers who fly under part 135. There would be
1,625 part 135 operators that employ 25,033 crewmembers, of whom 24,447
would be pilots and 586 would be flight attendants.
Period of Analysis
We used a 10-year time period to calculate the CRM training costs
and potential benefits from CRM training. A 10-year period of analysis
is sufficient to determine costs and benefits.
Risk of an Accident Caused by the Absence of CRM Training
We evaluated part 135 accidents from March 20, 1997, through March
7, 2008. During this time period, there were 24 accidents (18 involving
airplanes and 6 involving helicopters) with causal factors directly
related to a lack of effective CRM. These accidents were responsible
for 83 fatalities (66 involving airplanes and 17 involving helicopters)
and 12 serious injuries (all involving airplanes).
Further, of the 18 airplane accidents, 8 involved single pilot
operations and 10 involved dual-pilot operations. All 6 of the
helicopter accidents involved single pilot operations. The individual
accident histories are provided in the Initial Regulatory Evaluation,
which is in the docket.
Assumptions and Data Used To Estimate Benefits
The value of a prevented fatality is $5.8 million, which is the
Department of Transportation value of a statistical life.
Potential CRM Training Effectiveness and Benefits
We reviewed all part 121 accidents contained in the NTSB database
between 1988 through 2007 involving the same causal factors and divided
them into accidents occurring from 1988 through 1997, and accidents
occurring after 1997. As described earlier, the CRM rule for part 121
and for some part 135 operations became effective in 1997. We then
calculated the CRM training-related accident rates for these two groups
and found that the accident rates decreased from 0.0000206 to 0.0000182
(an 11.65 percent decline) and the accident rate for all fatal
accidents decreased from 0.0000048 to 0.0000036 (a 25 percent decline).
Although this accident rate reduction is not statistically significant
due to the infrequency of these accidents, it is useful in establishing
an upper bound for the potential CRM training effectiveness rate for
part 135 operations.
In order to illustrate the potential part 135 CRM training
benefits, we applied the part 121 accident rate reductions of 25
percent for fatal accidents and 11.65 percent for non-fatal accidents
to the 24 CRM-related part 135 accidents. Had the proposed CRM training
rule been in effect in 1997, it could have prevented
[[Page 20268]]
2.75 of these fatal airplane accidents involving 16.5 fatalities and
2.25 serious injuries, as well as 1 fatal helicopter accident involving
4.25 fatalities. It also could have prevented one non-fatal airplane
and helicopter accident. On that basis, the proposed rule could have
prevented 3.75 fatal accidents involving 20.75 fatalities and 2.25
serious injuries. Thus, applying the DOT values to the accidents
hypothetically prevented, an upper-bound quantified benefit of about
$121 million would have resulted had the proposed rule been in effect
since 1997.
Compliance Cost Assumptions
Current industry practice is the baseline for the incremental
compliance costs. CRM training is classroom training that would be
incorporated into the annual training already required of each part 135
operator.
All 26 large part 135 operators with more than 100 crewmembers and
10 percent of the 400 part 135 operators with 10-99 crewmembers (40
operators) provide CRM training and would incur minimal compliance
costs. The FAA estimates that 360 of the medium-sized operators and
none of the 1,199 small operators with less than 10 crewmembers
currently provide CRM training and all would incur compliance costs.
We based training costs on the guidelines in the FAA Advisory
Circular 120-51E and on the size of the firm.
The average cost to develop a CRM training program would be $1,170
for a medium-sized operator and $680 for a small operator.
Current pilots and future new pilots in medium-sized operations
would need 4 hours for initial CRM training while those in small
operations would need 3 hours.
Current flight attendants and future new flight attendants would
need 2 hours for initial CRM training.
Annual recurrent CRM training would take one-half of the time that
initial CRM training would require.
There would be an average of 10 pilots in an initial or recurrent
CRM training session for a medium-sized operator and an average of 3.66
for a small operator.
There would be an average of 3.92 flight attendants in an initial
or recurrent CRM training session for a medium-sized operator and an
average of 1.1 flight attendants for a small operator.
The average cost for an initial CRM pilot training session would be
$1,293 for a medium-sized operator and $428 for a small operator.
The average cost for an initial CRM flight attendant training
session would be $207 for a medium-sized operator and $94 for a small
operator.
The average cost for recurrent CRM pilot training would be $647 for
a medium-sized operator and $214 for a small operator.
The average cost for recurrent CRM flight attendant training would
be $104 for a medium-sized operator and $47 for a small operator.
Initial CRM training for new entrants would be done on a one-to-one
basis with the trainer. The average cost would be $208 per new pilot
hire for medium-sized operators and $156 for small operators. The
average cost would be $76 per new flight attendant hire for medium-
sized and small operators.
A crewmember who has received initial CRM training from an operator
would not need to repeat this initial CRM training if the crewmember
changes part 135 employers.
Compliance Costs
Based on those data and assumptions, as shown in Table 1, we
estimated that the proposed rule from 2009 through 2018 would have a
total cost of $11.2 million, which would have a present value of $8
million using a 7 percent discount rate, and a present value of $9.6
million using a 3 percent discount rate.
Table 1--Summary of the Total CRM Training Costs by Source of Cost (2009 Through 2018)
[Rounded to the nearest thousand dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total costs
-----------------------------------------------
Source of cost Present value Present value
Nominal (7%) (3%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CURRENT OPERATOR CRM PLAN....................................... $1,177 $1,101 $1,143
NEW OPERATOR CRM PLAN........................................... 345 234 290
CURRENT PILOT TRAINING.......................................... 1,476 1,289 1,391
NEW PILOT TRAINING.............................................. 1,437 964 1,203
PILOT RECURRENT TRAINING........................................ 6,684 4,326 5,510
CURRENT FLIGHT ATTENDANT TRAINING............................... 6 5 6
NEW FLIGHT ATTENDANT TRAINING................................... 18 12 15
FLIGHT ATTENDANT RECURRENT TRAINING............................. 50 32 41
-----------------------------------------------
TOTAL....................................................... 11,193 7,963 9,599
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost-Benefit Comparison
As presented earlier, an upper-bound estimate of the quantified
benefits of a $5.8 million value for a prevented fatality would be $121
million, which would be larger than the undiscounted compliance cost of
$11.2 million. As we do not predict the number of prevented accidents
that would occur from this proposed rule, we do not provide present
value benefits from preventing future accidents.
An alternative way of looking at the cost-benefit analysis is that
if the proposed rule were to prevent only 2 fatalities during this 10-
year period, the rule would be cost beneficial.
Finally, 9 out of 9 operators we surveyed already provide CRM
training. Thus, these operators have already made an implied internal
cost-benefit analysis that the benefits from CRM training are worth its
costs.
For those reasons, we conclude that the proposed CRM training rule
would be cost beneficial.
Regulatory Flexibility Assessment
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their
[[Page 20269]]
actions to assure that such proposals are given serious
consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the
agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required. The certification must include a statement providing the
factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be
clear.
The FAA reviewed the North American Industrial Classification
System codes to determine which entities affected by this rule would be
considered small businesses. Applying NAICS codes 481211 (Non-Scheduled
Chartered Air Services), 481212 (Non-Scheduled Chartered Freight
Services), and 621910 (Ambulance Services), the FAA determined that
1,559 entities employing 11,815 crewmembers would be affected by the
proposed rule. The average number of crewmembers per entity would be
7.6. The Small Business Administration (SBA) has established that all
operators with fewer than 1,500 employees in NACIS codes 481211 and
481212 are considered small businesses, and operators in NAICS code
621910 who have annual receipts of less than $7,000,000 are also small
businesses. Thus, all 1,559 operators in these NAICS codes that would
be affected by the proposed rule would be considered small businesses
under the applicable SBA size standard. See 13 CFR 121.201.
Although the proposed rule would impact a substantial number of
small businesses, the FAA has determined that the economic impact on
these businesses would not be significant. The average initial cost per
operator would be between $680 and $1,170. Further, the average annual
cost per operator would be $450. Thus, even for the smallest of these
operators that may have revenues of $250,000, the initial costs would
range from 0.25 percent to 0.45 percent of revenues. Thus, in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the FAA certifies that this proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The FAA solicits comments regarding this
determination.
International Trade Impact Analysis
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related
activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of
the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of
standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign
commerce of the United States, so long as the standards have a
legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and do
not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective.
The statute also requires consideration of international standards and,
where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA
notes the purpose is to ensure the safety of the American public, and
has assessed the effects of this proposed rule to ensure it does not
exclude imports that meet this objective. As a result, this proposed
rule is not considered as creating an unnecessary obstacle to foreign
commerce and has determined that it would only have a domestic impact
and therefore no effect on international trade.
Unfunded Mandates Assessment
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $136.1 million in lieu of $100
million. This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore,
the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this
action would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, and, therefore, would not have federalism implications.
Regulations Affecting Intrastate Aviation in Alaska
Section 1205 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 (110 Stat.
3213) requires the Administrator, when modifying regulations in title
14 of the CFR in a manner affecting intrastate aviation in Alaska, to
consider the extent to which Alaska is not served by transportation
modes other than aviation, and to establish appropriate regulatory
distinctions. Because this proposed rule would apply to part 135
operations in Alaska, it could, if adopted, affect intrastate aviation
in Alaska. We note that 7 of the 24 accidents previously referenced
occurred in Alaskan operations. The FAA, therefore, specifically
requests comments on whether there is justification for applying the
proposed rule differently in intrastate operations in Alaska.
Environmental Analysis
FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this proposed rulemaking action qualifies for the
categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 312f and involves no
extraordinary circumstances.
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use
The FAA has analyzed this NPRM under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not
a ``significant regulatory action'' under the executive order because
it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866 and DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures, and it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.
Additional Information
Comments Invited
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also
invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or
federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in
this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion
of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include
[[Page 20270]]
supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate
comments, please send only one copy of written comments, or if you are
filing comments electronically, please submit your comments only one
time.
We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.
Proprietary or Confidential Business Information
Do not file in the docket information that you consider to be
proprietary or confidential business information. Send or deliver this
information directly to the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. You must mark the
information that you consider proprietary or confidential. If you send
the information on a disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD
ROM and also identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is proprietary or confidential.
Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when we are aware of proprietary information
filed with a comment, we do not place it in the docket. We hold it in a
separate file to which the public does not have access, and we place a
note in the docket that we have received it. If we receive a request to
examine or copy this information, we treat it as any other request
under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We process such a
request under the DOT procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.
Availability of Rulemaking Documents
You can get an electronic copy of rulemaking documents using the
Internet by--
1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://
www.regulations.gov);
2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or
3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make
sure to identify the docket number or notice number of this rulemaking.
You may access all documents the FAA considered in developing this
proposed rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, from
the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in
paragraph 1.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 135
Air carriers, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Safety, Transportation.
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend Chapter I of Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, as follows:
PART 135--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND ON DEMAND OPERATIONS
AND RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD SUCH AIRCRAFT
1. The authority citation for part 135 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 41706, 40113, 44701-44702, 44705,
44709, 44711-44713, 44715-44717, 44722, 45101-45105.
2. In Sec. 135.329, add paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 135.329 Crewmember training requirements.
(a) * * *
(4) Crew resource management training in Sec. 135.330.
* * * * *
3. Add Sec. 135.330 to subpart H to read as follows:
Sec. 135.330 Crew resource management training.
(a) Each certificate holder must have an approved crew resource
management training program that includes initial and recurrent
training. The training program must include at least the following:
(1) Authority of the pilot in command;
(2) Communication processes, decisions, and coordination, to
include communication with Air Traffic Control, personnel performing
flight locating and other operational functions, and passengers;
(3) Building and maintenance of a flight team;
(4) Workload and time management;
(5) Situational awareness;
(6) Effects of fatigue on performance, avoidance strategies and
countermeasures;
(7) Effects of stress and stress reduction strategies; and
(8) Aeronautical decision-making and judgment training tailored to
the operator's flight operations and aviation environment.
(b) After [Two years after the effective date of the rule], no
certificate holder may use a person as a flightcrew member or flight
attendant unless that person has completed approved crew resource
management initial training with that certificate holder or with
another certificate holder.
(c) For flightcrew members and flight attendants, the
Administrator, at his or her discretion, may credit crew resource
management training received before [Two years after the effective date
of the rule] toward all or part of the initial CRM training required by
this section.
(d) In granting credit for initial CRM training, the Administrator
considers training aids, devices, methods and procedures used by the
certificate holder in a voluntary CRM program included in a training
program required by Sec. 135.341, Sec. 135.345, or Sec. 135.349.
4. In Sec. 135.351, revise paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 135.351 Recurrent Training.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) Instruction as necessary in the subjects required for initial
ground training by this subpart, as appropriate, including low-altitude
windshear training and training on operating during ground icing
conditions as prescribed in Sec. 135.341 and described in Sec.
135.345, crew resource management training as prescribed in Sec.
135.330, and emergency training as prescribed in Sec. 135.331.
* * * * *
Issued in Washington, DC, on April 27, 2009.
John McGraw,
Acting Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. E9-10085 Filed 4-30-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P