Here's the FAA press release (link) as referenced by Gne:
https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-lau...afety-campaign
FAA's announcement of new and/or additional training schedules is a result of the "Safety Summit" several weeks ago - of course its release so soon after the KMSP incident adds emphasis. The detailed subject-area subgroup meetings part of that FAA Summit were closed to the public (as SLF/attorney obviosuly I wasn't in) so exactly what FAA planned to do prior to this incident is not necessarily clear.
Also, with the Congress laboring to complete the necessary legislative reauthorization for FAA to continue to operate as a federal executive branch agency, and with the staff shortages of ATCOs a highly publicized item, and with the "results"* of the JFK and Austin incidents still pending, .... call me hot-headed if you like but if as legal counsel I had been engaged to be the "lawyer for the legislation" I would be kicking down doors to make sure the legislation moves very significantly on both issues. That is to say, on both staffing levels and R/T sloppiness.
*Results = in the case of AA106 crossing the runway, what is the outcome of why that occurred? Is the reported labor union position, that the new procedures were crammed down aviators' flight bags without adequate union participation and consultation, proven correct? (which personally I anticipate will be proven correct). And what was the situation with the ATCO in Austin? I want answers!!
(In some corporate law situations, an attorney will serve as "lawyer for the deal," not advising or representing either party, but looking out for the interests of the transaction as such. I know it sounds abstruse... it is, but real, regardless. So, lawyer for the legislation....)