Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 237 / Monday, December 10, 2012 / Notices 73511 

The number assigned to this disaster 

for physical damage is 133988 and for 

economic injury is 133998. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Numbers 59002 and 59008) 

James E. Rivera, 

Associate Administrator for Disaster 

Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 2012–29732 Filed 12–7–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025–01–P 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

[Disaster Declaration #13402 and #13403] 

Alaska Disaster #AK–00027 

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business 

Administration. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the 

Presidential declaration of a major 

disaster for Public Assistance Only for 

the State of Alaska (FEMA–4094–DR), 

dated 11/27/2012. 

Incident: Severe storm, straight-line 

winds, flooding, and landslides. 

Incident Period: 09/15/2012 through 

09/30/2012. 

Effective Date: 11/27/2012. 

Physical Loan Application Deadline 

Date: 01/28/2013. 

Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan 

Application Deadline Date: 08/27/2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan 

applications to: U.S. Small Business 

Administration, Processing And 

Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 

Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. 

Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, 

U.S. Small Business Administration, 

409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, 

Washington, DC 20416. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is 

hereby given that as a result of the 

President’s major disaster declaration on 

11/27/2012, Private Non-Profit 

organizations that provide essential 

services of governmental nature may file 

disaster loan applications at the address 

listed above or other locally announced 

locations. 

The following areas have been 

determined to be adversely affected by 

the disaster: 

Primary Counties: 

Alaska Gateway REAA; Chugach 

REAA; Denali Borough; Kenai Peninsula 

Borough; Matanuska-Susitna Borough. 

The Interest Rates are: 

Percent 

For Physical Damage: 

Non-Profit Organizations With 

Credit Available Elsewhere ... 3.125 

Percent 

Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere ..................................... 3.000 

For Economic Injury: 

Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere ..................................... 3.000 

The number assigned to this disaster 

for physical damage is 13402B and for 

economic injury is 13403B. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Numbers 59002 and 59008) 

James E. Rivera, 

Associate Administrator for Disaster 

Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 2012–29730 Filed 12–7–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

[Public Notice 8107] 

Culturally Significant Objects Imported 

for Exhibition Determinations: ‘‘Arts of 

Islamic Lands: Masterpieces From The 

al-Sabah Collection, Kuwait’’ 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the 

following determinations: Pursuant to 

the authority vested in me by the Act of 

October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 

2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 

27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and 

Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 

2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et 

seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of 

October 1, 1999, and Delegation of 

Authority No. 236–3 of August 28, 2000 

(and, as appropriate, Delegation of 

Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003), I 

hereby determine that the objects to be 

included in the exhibition ‘‘Arts of 

Islamic Lands: Masterpieces from The 

al-Sabah Collection, Kuwait,’’ imported 

from abroad for temporary exhibition 

within the United States, are of cultural 

significance. The objects are imported 

pursuant to loan agreements with the 

foreign owners or custodians. I also 

determine that the exhibition or display 

of the exhibit objects at The Museum of 

Fine Arts, Houston in Houston, Texas 

from on or about January 20, 2013, until 

on or about January 20, 2018, and at 

possible additional exhibitions or 

venues yet to be determined, is in the 

national interest. I have ordered that 

Public Notice of these Determinations 

be published in the Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information, including a list of 

the exhibit objects, contact Ona M. 

Hahs, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the 

Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State 

(telephone: 202–632–6473). The mailing 

address is U.S. Department of State, SA– 

5, L/PD, Fifth Floor (Suite 5H03), 

Washington, DC 20522–0505. 

Dated: December 3, 2012. 

J. Adam Ereli, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau 

of Educational and Cultural Affairs, 

Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 2012–29737 Filed 12–7–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710–05–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Clarification of Wildlife Hazard 

Management Requirements for NonCertificated Federally Obligated 

Airports in the National Plan of 

Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed clarification 

of Airport Improvement Program grant 

assurances and opportunity to 

comment. 

SUMMARY: To enhance safety, the FAA 

proposes to clarify Grant Assurance No. 

19, ‘‘Operation and Maintenance,’’ 

which is required of an airport sponsor 

as a condition of receiving a 

development grant under the Airport 

Improvement Program (AIP). This 

clarification would require noncertificated, federally obligated airports 

that, after the effective date of this 

Federal Register Notice, accept a new 

airport development grant funded under 

the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), 

or accept a transfer of land under the 

Surplus Property Act for airport 

purposes (‘‘Subject Airports’’), to 

conduct Wildlife Hazard Site Visits 

(WHSVs) or Wildlife Hazard 

Assessments (WHAs). Non-certificated 

airports are airports that do not have a 

Part 139 certificate, and may include 

both commercial service airports as well 

as non-primary airports that serve 

mostly general aviation traffic. The 

Secretary of Transportation is required 

to provide notice and comment in the 

Federal Register and an opportunity for 

the public to comment upon proposals 

to modify the assurances or add new 

assurances. 

DATES: Send your comments on or 

before January 9, 2013. The FAA will 

consider comments received on the 

proposed interpretation of the existing 

grant assurances. The FAA may adopt 

revisions resulting from comments as of 

the date of a subsequent Notice in the 

Federal Register. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

73512 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 237 / Monday, December 10, 2012 / Notices 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 

[identified by Docket Number FAA– 

INSERT #] using any of the following 

methods: 

• Government-wide rulemaking Web 

site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov 

and follow the instructions for sending 

your comments electronically. 

• Mail: Docket Operations, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, West 

Building, Ground Floor, Room W12– 

140, Routing Symbol M–30, 1200 New 

Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 

20590. 

• Fax: 1–202–493–2251. 

• Hand Delivery: To Docket 

Operations, Room W12–140 on the 

ground floor of the West Building, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

Privacy: We will post all comments 

we receive, without change, to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. 

Docket: To read background 

documents or comments received, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov at any time 

or to Room W12–140 on the ground 

floor of the West Building, 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: 

Michael J. O’Donnell, Director, Office 

Airport Safety and Standards, Room 

621, Federal Aviation Administration, 

800 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 

267–3053, email: 

mike.o’donnell@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

purpose of this notice is to clarify the 

FAA’s interpretation of 49 U.S.C. 

47107(a) (19) and the corollary Grant 

Assurance No. 19, relating to airport 

operations and maintenance. The FAA 

proposes to require sponsors of federally 

obligated, non-certificated airports that, 

after the effective date of this Federal 

Register Notice, accept a new airport 

development grant funded under the 

Airport Improvement Program, or accept 

a transfer of land under the Surplus 

Property Act for airport purposes to 

identify and mitigate wildlife hazards at 

their airports. These actions will take 

the form of initial Wildlife Hazard Site 

Visits (WHSVs) or Wildlife Hazard 

Assessments (WHAs), depending on the 

size of the airport, potentially followed 

by more detailed Wildlife Hazard 

Management Plans (WHMPs). 

The purpose of a WHSV is for the 

sponsor to identify any immediate 

hazards and for the FAA to determine 

whether a more comprehensive WHA is 

necessary. A WHSV is typically 

conducted over a period of one to three 

days. A WHA is a far more 

comprehensive survey, typically 

conducted over a 12-month period. 

WHMP is the plan the airport proposes 

to mitigate any wildlife hazards found. 

The Secretary must receive certain 

assurances from a sponsor (applicant) 

seeking financial assistance under title 

49 U.S.C. 47107, as amended. Sponsors 

must submit and attest to these 

assurances as part of their application 

for Federal financial assistance, and the 

FAA incorporates these assurances into 

all AIP grant agreements. From time to 

time, as necessary, the FAA clarifies, 

modifies or supplements these 

assurances to reflect new requirements 

deemed reasonably necessary to carry 

out the Airport Improvement Program. 

A complete list of the current grant 

assurances is available at: http:// 

www.faa.gov/airports/aip/ 

grant_assurances/. The FAA amended 

and published the current assurances in 

the Federal Register on April 13, 2012 

(see ‘‘Airport Improvement Program 

(AIP) Grant Assurances,’’ 77 FR 22376). 

The FAA uses a standard set of 

assurances for Airport Sponsors 

(owners/operators) called Appendix 1. 

The FAA is interpreting 49 U.S.C. 

47107(a)(19) and the corollary grant 

assurance, No. 19, relating to airport 

operation and maintenance, to require 

airport sponsors to conduct wildlife 

hazard assessments or site visits and 

other actions as necessary, as detailed in 

this notice, to detect and identify 

wildlife hazards. The clarification 

relates to Appendix 1, Airport Sponsors 

assurances. 

Grant Assurance No. 19, ‘‘Operation 

and Maintenance,’’ requires a sponsor to 

operate ‘‘the airport and all facilities 

which are necessary to serve the 

aeronautical users of the airport [* * *], 

in a safe and serviceable condition and 

in accordance with the minimum 

standards as may be required or 

prescribed by applicable Federal, state 

and local agencies for maintenance and 

operation.’’ Under Assurance No. 19, 

sponsors are also required to ‘‘have in 

effect arrangements for [* * *] 

promptly notifying airmen of any 

condition affecting aeronautical use of 

the airport.’’ 

The airports affected by this 

clarification of Grant Assurance No. 19 

(Subject Airports) are non-certificated 

airports. Non-certificated airports 

include smaller commercial service 

airports, as well as non-primary airports 

that service mostly general aviation 

(GA) operations. These airports are 

typically smaller and have less air 

traffic, more piston-powered aircraft, 

and smaller jet aircraft, than certificated 

airports. This notice does not apply to 

Part 139 certificated airports. All Part 

139 certificated airports will continue to 

follow Part 139 regulations for 

determining when WHA’s are required. 

The FAA has divided the Subject 

Airports into four categories based on 

based aircraft and total operations. The 

four categories are: 

a. Subject Airports with 100 or more 

based turbine-powered aircraft or 75,000 

or more total annual operations. The 

WHA must be initiated within three 

years of receiving a development grant 

after the final Federal Register notice. 

The airport sponsor must update its 

WHA at least once every 10 years 

thereafter. 

b. Subject Airports with between 20– 

99 based turbine-powered aircraft or 

30,000–74,999 total annual operations. 

The WHSV must be initiated within 

three years of receiving a development 

grant after the final Federal Register 

notice. The airport sponsor must update 

its WHSV at least once every five years 

thereafter. 

c. Subject Airports with between 0–19 

based turbine-powered aircraft or 

between 10,000–29,999 total annual 

operations. The WHSV must be initiated 

within five years of receiving a 

development grant after the final 

Federal Register notice. The airport 

sponsor must update its WHSV at least 

once every five years thereafter. 

d. Subject Airports with no based 

turbine-powered aircraft and fewer than 

10,000 total annual operations. The 

WHSV must be initiated within eight 

years of receiving a development grant 

after the final Federal Register notice. 

The airport sponsor must update its 

WHSV at least once every five years 

thereafter. 

Data for these categories comes from 

the FAA Form 5010–1, Airport Master 

Record database. The FAA classifies 

airports to fit within the highest 

applicable category: that is, if an 

airport’s number of based turbinepowered aircraft would place it into one 

category, while the airport’s number of 

annual operations would place it into a 

higher category, the FAA classifies the 

airport to be within the higher category. 

When a WHSV is completed, the 

airport sponsor will provide a letter to 

the FAA along with the WHSV report. 

This letter will summarize pertinent 

wildlife information, any immediate 

mitigation activities the airport can do 

to alleviate or reduce wildlife hazards, 

and a recommendation as to whether a 

more comprehensive WHA is necessary. 

The FAA will then determine the need 

for a comprehensive WHA. Similarly, 

the FAA will determine if the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 237 / Monday, December 10, 2012 / Notices 73513 

conclusions and recommendations 

within a WHA warrant a WHMP. 

The FAA further interprets the 

statutory and grant assurance 

obligations to require airport sponsors to 

update their WHAs every 10 years, and 

WHSVs at least once every five years 

thereafter. WHAs are granted a longer 

time before expiration because they 

cover a full year and are more 

comprehensive than WHSVs. WHSVs 

are one to three days in length, and are 

not nearly as comprehensive as WHAs. 

Like other WHAs, sponsors must submit 

the updated WHAs to the FAA 

Administrator for approval and 

determination of the need for a WHMP. 

The clarification the FAA proposes 

represents the FAA’s desire to continue 

to enhance safety and prevent accidents 

before they occur, and is consistent with 

its previous safety enhancement efforts. 

These efforts include rulemaking on the 

subject of Safety Management Systems 

(SMS), as well as Cert Alert No. 09–10 

‘‘Wildlife Hazard Assessments in 

Accordance with Part 139 

Requirements’’ (June 11, 2009), which 

the FAA issued to remind Part 139 

airport operators of their obligations to 

conduct Wildlife Hazard Assessments if 

certain criteria are met. In this Cert 

Alert, the FAA also recommended that 

Part 139 airports that had not 

experienced a triggering event 

voluntarily conduct a WHA. In addition, 

the Cert Alert recommended that 

airports update WHAs more than five 

years old. The FAA believes sponsors 

who accept new grants at Subject 

Airports need to be more proactive in 

the future and take steps to understand 

and alleviate the risks of wildlife strikes. 

The FAA published Advisory Circular 

5200–33B (‘‘Hazardous Wildlife 

Attractants on or Near Airports’’) on 

August 28, 2007. Paragraph 2 states, 

‘‘Airports that have received Federal 

grant-in-aid assistance must use these 

standards.’’ The word ‘‘standards’’ in 

this section of the AC refers to the 

separation criteria for proposed land use 

practices, described in Section 1 of the 

AC and referenced in Section 4–3 of the 

AC. The FAA considers the grant 

assurances to require federally funded 

airports to adhere to the separation 

criteria. 

The AC also recommends that 

federally funded airports near 

woodlands, wetlands, and water prepare 

wildlife hazard assessments (WHAs). 

Specifically, Paragraph 2–7 (c) states, 

‘‘The FAA recommends that operators 

of airports surrounded by woodlands, 

water, or wetlands refer to Section 2.4 

of this AC.’’ The FAA has not 

interpreted this statement or the grant 

assurances to mean that non-certificated 

airports were required to do WHAs. 

This interpretation of the AC was 

reasonable based on the AC’s plain 

language, its history, as well as the 

requirements for federally funded 

airports under Part 139, which were less 

stringent with regard to WHA triggering 

events. 

The FAA is concurrently publishing 

the draft Advisory Circular, No. 5200– 

33C, on the FAA’s Web site at http:// 

www.faa.gov/airports/resources/ 

draft_advisory_circulars/ for public 

comment. To comment on the draft 

Advisory Circular, follow the 

instructions on the Web site. 

Proposed changes to Advisory 

Circular 5200–33B include the removal 

of Section 2.7(c), ‘‘Airports Surrounded 

by Wildlife Habitat.’’ The FAA also 

proposes to modify the Applicability 

section to be consistent with the FAA’s 

interpretation of Grant Assurance No. 

19. The FAA proposes interpreting the 

grant assurance to require noncertificated, federally obligated airports 

that accept a new airport development 

grant under the Airport Improvement 

Program (AIP), or a new surplus 

property conveyance, to monitor, 

evaluate, and mitigate risks associated 

with wildlife hazards. The FAA also 

proposes recommended procedures 

concerning off-airport attractants (i.e., 

notification and review of proposed 

land-use practice changes in the vicinity 

of public-use airports). 

We are also clarifying in this Federal 

Register Notice that we interpret the 

phrase ‘‘farthest edge of the airport’s 

AOA’’ in Para 1–4 of Advisory Circular 

150/5200–33 (‘‘Hazardous Wildlife 

Attractants on or Near Airports’’) to 

refer to the edge of the air operations 

area (AOA) closest to the wildlife 

attractant. 

This serves as notice pursuant to 49 

U.S.C. 47107(h) that the FAA interprets 

Grant Assurance No. 19 to include a 

requirement for all Subject Airports to 

undertake either a Wildlife Hazard 

Assessment (WHA) or Wildlife Hazard 

Safety Site Visit (WHSV), and to 

mitigate wildlife risks according to 

criteria set forth in this notice. This is 

done in accordance with the authority 

of the Secretary of Transportation to 

take such action that the Secretary 

considers necessary to carry out the 

Airport Improvement Program, 

including grant assurance requirements 

for sponsors. 49 U.S.C. 47107(g)(1)(A), 

47122(a). To comment on this Notice, 

follow the instructions set forth under 

ADDRESSES, above. 

Currently, Grant Assurance No. 19 

reads, in part, ‘‘[The sponsor] will 

suitably operate and maintain the 

airport and all facilities thereon or 

connected therewith, with due regard to 

climatic and flood conditions.’’ To 

clarify, the FAA proposes to add 

language addressing wildlife hazards to 

this sentence, so that it would read: 

‘‘[The sponsor] will suitably operate and 

maintain the airport and all facilities 

thereon or connected therewith, with 

due regard to issues including, but not 

limited to, climatic and flood 

conditions, and wildlife hazards.’’ 

This Federal Register Notice does not 

apply to Part 139 certificated airports. 

Specific requirements for certificated 

airports to alleviate wildlife hazards 

whenever detected are published at 14 

CFR 139.337. 

Under the Surplus Property Act of 

1944, now codified at 49 U.S.C. 47151– 

47153, Congress authorized the 

conversion of surplus military airports 

to civilian public use airports. State or 

local governments request the Federal 

Government to convey land that is 

desirable for developing, improving, 

operating, or maintaining a public 

airport. The property is transferred to 

the new public-entity owner through an 

instrument of property conveyance. The 

transfer instrument contains deed 

covenants similar to the grant 

assurances, which the FAA enforces 

through 14 CFR Part 16. One of the deed 

covenants is a provision substantially 

similar to Grant Assurance No. 19 (See 

FAA Order 5150.2A, Appendix 3, 

paragraph 6(b)). This is to provide 

notice that the FAA will be interpreting 

this parallel provision of Grant 

Assurance No. 19 in a similar manner. 

In summary, the FAA proposes to 

interpret the statutory and grant 

assurance provisions relating to safety, 

and the parallel deed covenant included 

in instruments of conveyance of surplus 

property, on a prospective basis, to 

require all Subject Airports to conduct 

either a WHA or WHSV, and to prepare 

a WHMP if necessary, upon acceptance 

of a new grant for a development 

project, or a new instrument of 

conveyance for surplus property after 

the effective date of the final Federal 

Register Notice. The FAA believes this 

will enhance safety in managing 

wildlife hazards at general aviation 

airports. 

Additional Information: On March 4, 

2008, a catastrophic wildlife strike 

involving a Cessna 500 Citation and an 

unknown number of migratory white 

pelicans resulted in five fatalities near 

Wiley Post Airport in Oklahoma City, 

OK. Following the National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 

investigation, the NTSB recommended 

the FAA ‘‘[v]erify that all federally 

obligated general aviation airports that 

are located near woodlands, water, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with 

73514 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 237 / Monday, December 10, 2012 / Notices 

1This underreporting may be partly due 

requirement in part 139 that Class I–III airports 

conduct a wildlife hazard assessment and then 

implement a wildlife hazard management plan 

should one of four specified triggering events occur 

at the airport. 

wetlands, or other wildlife attractants 

are complying with the requirements to 

perform wildlife hazard assessments as 

specified in Federal Aviation 

Administration Advisory Circular 150/ 

5200–33B, Hazardous Wildlife 

Attractants On or Near Airports.’’ In 

response, the FAA stated it would: 

[* * *] modify Advisory Circular (AC) 

150/5200–33B and our grant assurances to 

clarify the responsibility of federally 

obligated National Plan of Integrated Airport 

System/General Aviation (NPIAS/GA) 

airports, to conduct wildlife hazard 

assessments (WHA). To assist the airports in 

conducting the WHAs, we will make Airport 

Improvement Program (AIP) grant funds 

available to them and we will prepare a plan 

to establish the priority and subsequent 

schedule for completing the WHAs * * * 

Many populations of wildlife species 

commonly involved in aircraft strikes in 

the United States have increased 

markedly in number in the last few 

decades. For example, from 1980 to 

2009, the resident (non-migratory) 

Canada goose population in the USA 

and Canada increased at a mean rate of 

13.3 percent per year. Other species 

showing significant mean annual rates 

of increase included bald eagles (3.6 

percent), wild turkeys (11.1 percent), 

turkey vultures (2.6 percent), American 

white pelicans (8.4 percent), doublecrested cormorants (6.6 percent), and 

sandhill cranes (6.4 percent). Thirteen 

of the 14 bird species in North America 

with mean body masses greater than 8 

lbs. have shown significant population 

increases over the past three decades. 

The white-tailed deer population 

increased from about 15 million in 1984 

and to over 28 million in 2010. 

In May 2009, the FAA authorized a 

study through the FAA Airport 

Technology Research and Development 

Branch to review the National Wildlife 

Strike Database and determine the 

current level of reporting and if it is 

sufficient to determine national trends. 

The two parts of this study, ‘‘Trends in 

Wildlife Strike Reporting, Part 1— 

Voluntary System 1990–2008,’’ DOT/ 

FAA/AR–09/65 (December 2009) and 

‘‘Wildlife Strike Reporting—Sources of 

Data in Voluntary System,’’ DOT/FAA/ 

AR–09/63 (December 2009), also 

reviewed whether strike reporting 

should be mandated and how the FAA 

can increase its data collection. 

This study identified an increase in 

the total number of strikes reported from 

20 percent of all strikes occurring from 

1990 to 1994 to 39 percent of all strikes 

occurring from 2004 to 2008 at airports 

certificated under 14 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) Part 139. Although 

there was a higher level of reporting, the 

total number of damaging strikes did not 

increase. The study attributes this to the 

successful implementation of 

professionally run wildlife hazard 

programs to mitigate significant wildlife 

hazards at many certificated airports 

(See Trends in Wildlife Strike Reporting, 

section 6). 

The study did identify substantial 

reporting gaps in the reporting of bird 

strikes among certificated airports, air 

carriers, and GA airports. The report 

addressed GA airports listed in the 

NPIAS (and therefore eligible to receive 

grants of federal funding) separately 

from other GA airports. Less than 6 

percent of all strike reports come from 

NPIAS GA airports, and reporting rates 

average less than 1/20 of the rates at Part 

139 airports. 

Although the current overall reporting 

rate of 39 percent is adequate to: (1) 

Track national trends in wildlife strikes; 

(2) determine the hazard level of 

wildlife species that are being struck; 

and (3) provide a scientific foundation 

for FAA policies and guidance regarding 

the mitigation of risk from wildlife 

strikes, the study concluded that NPIAS 

GA airport strike reporting is 

underrepresented (see ‘‘Trends in 

Wildlife Strike Reporting,’’ section 5.2).1

Whereas about 11 percent of the strikes 

reported from Part 139 airports 

indicated damage to the aircraft, about 

50 percent of the strikes reported from 

NPIAS GA airports indicated damage. 

Thus, even though NPIAS GA airports 

report fewer total damaging strikes 

compared to Part 139 airports, such 

strikes constitute a much higher 

percentage of their total reporting. This 

raises the concern that non-damaging 

strikes are occurring at these airports 

but going unreported. 

Increased monitoring of general 

conditions and reporting of even nondamaging strikes by GA airports is 

important because it allows for 

identification of potential and minor 

hazards before they become major 

hazards, which in turn allows airports 

to prevent damaging strikes before they 

occur. 

Turning to strike rates for GA aircraft 

at Part 139 compared to NPIAS GA 

airports, the reported strike rate for GA 

aircraft at Part 139 airports was nine 

times higher than the reported strike 

rate for GA aircraft at NPIAS GA 

airports. ‘‘GA aircraft’’ is defined in the 

study as non-commercial private, 

business, or government aircraft—see 

‘‘Trends in Wildlife Strike Reporting,’’ 

section 4.3.3. However, the damaging 

strike rate for GA aircraft at Part 139 

airports was three times higher than it 

was for GA aircraft at NPIAS GA 

airports. It is notable that of the 49 

reported civil aircraft destroyed or 

damaged beyond repair because of 

wildlife strikes in the U.S. from 1990– 

2008, 33 (67 percent) occurred on or 

near GA airports. 

According to the study, the number of 

Part 139 airports reporting at least one 

wildlife strike increased from 234 (42 

percent of the 552 airports) in 1990 to 

333 (60 percent) in 2008. The overall 

reported strike rates at individual Part 

139 airports were 15 to 47 times higher 

compared to NPIAS non-certificated 

airports in each year (1990–2009). The 

average strike rate of all Part 139 

airports compared to NPIAS noncertificated airports was 23 times higher 

during this same time. Although this 

may be explained by a different mix of 

aircraft using these two different 

categories of airports, the magnitude of 

the difference indicates that actual 

reporting rates for NPIAS GA airports 

are much lower than for Part 139 

airports. This is supported in the study 

by an examination of reporting rates for 

damaging strikes where the magnitude 

of difference is much less. Whereas Part 

139 airports had a 23-fold higher 

average reporting rate for all strikes 

compared to NPIAS GA airports, the 

reporting rate for damaging strikes was 

only 5-fold higher. Thus, even though 

fewer total damaging strikes are 

reported compared to Part 139 airports, 

there is more of a tendency at NPIAS 

GA airports to report damaging strikes 

compared to non-damaging strikes. As 

stated above, increased monitoring of 

wildlife conditions and reporting of 

even non-damaging strikes are 

important to prevent dangerous 

conditions and damaging strikes before 

they occur. 

Benito DeLeon, 

Director, Office of Airport Planning and 

Programming. 

[FR Doc. 2012–29591 Filed 12–7–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with