24930 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2016 / Notices 

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: Dan 

Ngo, 202–267–4264 800 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591. 

This notice is published pursuant to 14 

CFR 11.85. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 21, 

2016. 

James M. Crotty, 

Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking. 

Petition for Exemption 

Docket No.: FAA–2015–0481. 

Petitioner: Aviation Systems 

Engineering Company. 

Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: 

§§ 91.119(c) and 91.151(a)(1). 

Description of Relief Sought: The 

petitioner is seeking relief to amend 

Exemption No. 11509 to operate within 

500 feet from nonparticipating persons, 

as well as relief from the minimum fuel 

requirement. 

[FR Doc. 2016–09779 Filed 4–26–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

[Summary Notice No. 2016–49] 

Petition for Exemption; Summary of 

Petition Received; VT DRB Aviation 

Consultants 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This notice contains a 

summary of a petition seeking relief 

from specified requirements of Title 14 

of the Code of Federal Regulations. The 

purpose of this notice is to improve the 

public’s awareness of, and participation 

in, the FAA’s exemption process. 

Neither publication of this notice nor 

the inclusion or omission of information 

in the summary is intended to affect the 

legal status of the petition or its final 

disposition. 

DATES: Comments on this petition must 

identify the petition docket number and 

must be received on or before May 17, 

2016. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified 

by docket number FAA–2015–8751 

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 Docket 

Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Room W12–140, West 

Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 

20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Take 

comments to 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 Docket 

Operations at 202–493–2251. 

Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

553(c), DOT solicits comments from the 

public to better inform its rulemaking 

process. DOT posts these comments, 

without edit, including any personal 

information the commenter provides, to 

http://www.regulations.gov, as 

described in the system of records 

notice (DOT/ALL–14 FDMS), which can 

be reviewed at http://www.dot.gov/

privacy. 

Docket: Background documents or 

comments received may be read at 

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

Follow the online instructions for 

accessing the docket or go 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: 

Deana Stedman, ANM–113, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057–3356, 

email deana.stedman@faa.gov, phone 

(425) 227–2148. 

This notice is published pursuant to 

14 CFR 11.85. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 20, 

2016. 

James M. Crotty, 

Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking. 

Petition for Exemption 

Docket No.: FAA–2015–8751. 

Petitioner: VT DRB Aviation 

Consultants. 

Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: 

§ 25.817. 

Description of Relief Sought: VT DRB 

Aviation Consultants petitions the FAA 

for an exemption from § 25.817 which 

allows no more than three seats abreast 

on each side of the aisle in any one row. 

Instead, the petitioner wishes to install 

four seats abreast on one side of the 

aisle with no seats on the opposite side, 

having less passenger egress impedance 

than in standard Boeing Model 777 

passenger jet configurations. 

[FR Doc. 2016–09773 Filed 4–26–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory 

Committee—New Task 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of a new task assignment 

for the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory 

Committee. 

SUMMARY: The FAA assigned the 

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory 

Committee (ARAC) a new task to 

provide recommendations regarding 

bird strike protection rulemaking, 

policy, and guidance for normal 

category rotorcraft and to provide 

recommendations to enhance the 

existing bird strike protection standards 

for transport category rotorcraft. The 

FAA amended its regulations to 

incorporate bird strike protection rules 

for transport category rotorcraft in 1996. 

Data shows an increase in the bird 

population and weight has resulted in 

an increase in bird strikes with both 

normal category rotorcraft and transport 

category rotorcraft. The increase in bird 

strikes has led to more frequent bird 

penetration into the cockpit and cabin 

areas, elevating the risk of potential 

serious injuries or fatalities to 

occupants. Direct bird impact to the 

pilot has led to partial or complete pilot 

incapacitation in numerous cases, 

increasing the risk of fatalities. 

This notice informs the public of the 

new ARAC activity and solicits 

membership for the Rotorcraft Bird 

Strike Working Group. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary 

B. Roach, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 10101 Hillwood 

Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177, 

Gary.B.Roach@faa.gov, phone number 

817–222–5110, facsimile number 817– 

222–5961. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

ARAC Acceptance of Task 

As a result of the March 23, 2016, 

ARAC meeting, the FAA assigned and 

ARAC accepted this task establishing 

the Rotorcraft Bird Strike Working 

Group. The Rotorcraft Bird Strike 

Working Group will serve as staff to the 

ARAC and provide advice and 

recommendations on the assigned task. 

The ARAC will review and accept the 

recommendation report and will submit 

it to the FAA. 

Background 

The FAA established the ARAC to 

provide information, advice, and 

recommendations on aviation-related 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2016 / Notices 24931 

issues that could result in rulemaking, 

to the FAA Administrator, through the 

Associate Administrator of Aviation 

Safety. 

In 1996, a bird strike protection rule 

(14 CFR 29.631) was adopted requiring 

that transport category rotorcraft be 

designed to ensure continued safe flight 

and landing (for Category A) or safe 

landing (for Category B) following an 

impact with a 2.2-pound bird. At that 

time, bird strike protection was not 

adopted for normal category rotorcraft. 

As of 2015, normal category rotorcraft 

comprise over 90% of rotorcraft 

operating in the U.S. The data from the 

FAA’s Wildlife Strike Database 

indicates about 75% of reported bird 

strikes from 1990–2013 were with 

normal category rotorcraft. These 

percentages suggest that the absence of 

bird strike protective requirements for 

normal category rotorcraft results in 

increased risk for the majority of U.S. 

rotorcraft. 

Further analysis of rotorcraft data 

from the FAA’s Wildlife Strike Database 

indicates a 68% increase in bird strikes 

since 2009 and more than a 700% 

increase since the early 2000s. In raw 

numbers, the percentages translate from 

around 25 reports of rotorcraft bird 

strikes per year in the early 2000s, to 

121 strikes in 2009, to 204 strikes in 

2013. Using rotorcraft flight hours to 

perform a rate-based analysis, reported 

bird strikes increased 49% in the five 

year period from 2010 to 2014 (3.99 per 

100,000 flight hours to 5.95 per 100,000 

flight hours). Better event reporting 

accounts for some of this increase, but 

the rapid escalation goes beyond 

reporting improvements alone. One 

conjecture is the increase may be caused 

by the growing population of birds in 

general, a growing population of larger 

birds, quieter aircraft, and an increase in 

the number of rotorcraft operations. 

In addition to the increased frequency 

of bird strikes, the FAA has observed 

increased strikes to the rotorcraft 

windscreen area with a force of impact 

that has directly endangered occupants 

and elevated the risk to safe rotorcraft 

operations. Bird penetration into the 

cockpit and cabin areas has become 

increasingly common, elevating the 

probability of potential serious injuries 

or fatalities to occupants. Moreover, 

direct bird impact to the pilot has led to 

partial or complete pilot incapacitation 

in numerous cases, often causing an 

increased risk for loss of control of the 

rotorcraft and fatalities. The typical 

scenario is that the bird strikes and 

shatters a portion of the front 

windscreen. The bird’s remains, as well 

as damaged portions of the rotorcraft 

(such as the windscreen), either hit the 

pilot in the head, neck, or upper torso, 

or proceed through the cockpit to strike 

the passengers or crew. 

These recent observations reinforce 

previous findings from the study, Bird 

Strikes to Civil Helicopters in the United 

States, 1990–2005 (2006), by Cleary, 

Dolbeer, and Wright, based on 15 years 

of data from the FAA’s National 

Wildlife Database. The study concluded 

that: (1) Helicopters were significantly 

more likely to be damaged by bird 

strikes than airplanes, (2) windshields 

on helicopters were more frequently 

struck and damaged than windshields 

on airplanes, and (3) helicopter bird 

strikes were more likely to lead to 

injuries to crew or passengers than 

airplane bird strikes. The NTSB 

referenced these same findings in its 

accident report of a 2009 fatal rotorcraft 

accident in Morgan City, LA, where a 

bird strike was determined to be the 

probable cause of the accident (NTSB 

Aircraft Accident Report No. 

CEN09MA117). 

Some bird strike events where the 

bird penetrates the cockpit and cabin 

have received less attention either 

because the damage was limited to the 

windscreen or because the injury to the 

crew and passengers was minor. 

However, a superficial examination of 

the rotorcraft damage and occupant 

injury levels is misleading. The FAA 

has found that most of these cases had 

less to do with the sufficiency of aircraft 

design and equipage, and more to do 

with the crew’s personal protective 

gear—such as helmets—that mitigated 

the potential event severity. Other cases 

of low severity are the result of 

fortuitous circumstance. One specific 

example occurred during a March 2015 

police operation in Dallas, Texas, where 

a bird penetrated the cockpit and struck 

the pilot, who was not wearing a 

helmet. The pilot was incapacitated by 

the impact and—under ordinary 

circumstances—the event would likely 

have led to a fatal outcome from loss of 

rotorcraft control. However, the left seat 

occupant happened to be a rated 

helicopter pilot, something that was not 

typical for the police operation being 

conducted. The left seat occupant then 

assumed control of the rotorcraft and 

landed without incident. The result was 

an event with a low-severity outcome, 

but the underlying lesson from the 

relatively benign consequence cannot be 

dismissed. 

While the absence of any bird strike 

requirements for normal category 

rotorcraft must be addressed, data 

shows that bird strikes with transport 

category rotorcraft are a growing 

concern, especially encounters with 

larger birds. Transport category 

rotorcraft are more likely to spend 

extended time in the en route phase of 

flight and fly at higher altitudes. While 

the higher altitude would appear to 

reduce the probability of encountering 

bird strike, data shows an increased 

altitude does not mitigate the severity of 

damage when a bird strike occurs. A 

United States Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) study found that, of the 32 

damaging strikes that occurred to U.S. 

rotorcraft in 2014, 72% of those 

occurred more than 500 feet above 

ground level. The study opined that the 

more severe damage was likely 

attributable to the higher speed of the 

rotorcraft during the en route phase of 

flight. The increased exposure of 

transport category rotorcraft in this 

environment suggests the existing 2.2- 

pound bird strike requirement may not 

be adequate. 

Whether normal category or transport 

category, the unique operating profile of 

a helicopter leads to a different 

exposure to bird strike risk than does 

fixed-wing aircraft. The study, Wildlife 

strikes to civil helicopters in the U.S., 

1990–2011 (2013) by Washburn, Cisar, 

and Default, discusses some of the 

differences. It concluded that, unlike 

with fixed-wing aircraft, helicopter bird 

strikes occur with greatest frequency 

during the en route phase of flight and 

in the off-airfield environment. It credits 

bird strikes that occur in the off-airfield 

environment as accounting for the 

majority of bird strike-related human 

injuries and fatalities for helicopters. 

Since helicopters operate at much lower 

altitudes than fixed-wing aircraft, the 

exposure to the risk of a bird strike is 

not limited to the departure and arrival 

phases of flight, but instead remains for 

the duration of the flight profile. 

The Task 

The Rotorcraft Bird Strike Working 

Group will provide advice and 

recommendations to the ARAC on bird 

strike protection rulemaking, policy, 

and guidance for parts 27 and 29. The 

Rotorcraft Bird Strike Working Group is 

tasked to: 

1. For normal category rotorcraft, 

specifically advise and make written 

recommendations on how to incorporate 

bird strike protection requirements into 

the part 27 airworthiness standards for 

newly type certificated rotorcraft. 

2. For normal category rotorcraft, 

specifically advise and make written 

recommendations on how the bird strike 

protection requirements in Task 1 

should be made effective via § 27.2 for 

newly manufactured rotorcraft. 

3. For transport category rotorcraft, 

specifically advise and make written 

recommendations on how to enhance 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
24932 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 81 / Wednesday, April 27, 2016 / Notices 

the § 29.631 bird strike protection 

airworthiness standard in light of 

increases in bird weight and increased 

exposure to bird strikes for newly type 

certificated rotorcraft. 

4. For transport category rotorcraft, 

specifically advise and make written 

recommendations on how the bird strike 

protection requirements in Task 3 

should be made effective via § 29.2 for 

newly manufactured rotorcraft. 

5. For normal and transport category 

rotorcraft, specifically advise and make 

written recommendations on 

incorporating rotorcraft bird strike 

protection improvements and standards 

into the existing rotorcraft fleet. 

6. For Tasks 1 through 5, consider 

existing non-traditional bird strike 

protection technology, including the use 

of aircraft flight manual limitations 

(such as requiring airspeed limitations 

at lower altitudes), when making the 

recommendations. These considerations 

must include: An evaluation of the 

effectiveness of such technology, 

assumptions used as part of that 

evaluation, validation of those 

assumptions, and any procedures to be 

used for operation with the technology 

or with the aircraft limitations. 

7. Based on the recommendations in 

Tasks 1 through 6, specifically advise 

and make written recommendations for 

the associated policy and guidance. 

8. Based on the Rotorcraft Bird Strike 

Working Group recommendations, 

perform the following: 

a. Estimate what the regulated parties 

would do differently as a result of the 

proposed recommendation and how 

much it would cost. 

b. Estimate the safety improvements 

of future bird encounters from the 

proposed recommendations. 

c. Estimate any other benefits (e.g., 

reduced administrative burden) or costs 

that would result from implementation 

of the recommendations. 

9. Develop a report containing 

recommendations on the findings and 

results of the tasks explained above. The 

report should document: 

a. Both majority and dissenting 

positions on the findings and the 

rationale for each position. 

b. Any disagreements, including the 

rationale for each position and the 

reasons for the disagreement. 

10. The working group may be 

reinstated to assist the ARAC in 

responding to the FAA’s questions or 

concerns after the recommendation 

report has been submitted. 

Schedule 

The recommendation report should be 

submitted to the FAA for review and 

acceptance no later than 18 months after 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. 

Working Group Activity 

The Rotorcraft Bird Strike Working 

Group must comply with the procedures 

adopted by the ARAC as follows: 

1. Conduct a review and analysis of 

the assigned tasks and any other related 

materials or documents. 

2. Draft and submit a work plan for 

completion of the task, including the 

rationale supporting such a plan, for 

consideration by the ARAC. 

3. Provide a status report at each 

ARAC meeting. 

4. Draft and submit the 

recommendation report based on review 

and analysis of the assigned tasks. 

5. Present the recommendation report 

at the ARAC meeting. 

Participation in the Working Group 

The Rotorcraft Bird Strike Working 

Group will be comprised of technical 

experts having an interest in the 

assigned task. A working group member 

need not be a member representative of 

the ARAC. The FAA would like a wide 

range of members (normal category 

rotorcraft manufacturers, transport 

category rotorcraft manufacturers, and 

rotorcraft operators from various 

segments of the industry such as oil and 

gas exploration, emergency medical 

services, and air tour operators) to 

ensure all aspects of the tasks are 

considered in development of the 

recommendations. The provisions of the 

August 13, 2014, Office of Management 

and Budget guidance, ‘‘Revised 

Guidance on Appointment of Lobbyists 

to Federal Advisory Committees, 

Boards, and Commissions’’ (79 FR 

47482), continues the ban on registered 

lobbyists participating on Agency 

Boards and Commissions if 

participating in their ‘‘individual 

capacity.’’ The revised guidance now 

allows registered lobbyists to participate 

on Agency Boards and Commissions in 

a ‘‘representative capacity’’ for the 

‘‘express purpose of providing a 

committee with the views of a 

nongovernmental entity, a recognizable 

group of persons or nongovernmental 

entities (an industry, sector, labor 

unions, or environmental groups, etc.) 

or state or local government.’’ (For 

further information, see Lobbying 

Disclosure Act of 1995 as amended, 2 

U.S.C. 1603, 1604, and 1605.) 

If you wish to become a member of 

the Rotorcraft Bird Strike Working 

Group, write the person listed under the 

caption FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT expressing that desire. Describe 

your interest in the task and state the 

expertise you would bring to the 

working group. The FAA must receive 

all requests by May 27, 2016. The ARAC 

and the FAA will review the requests 

and advise you whether or not your 

request is approved. 

If you are chosen for membership in 

the working group, you must actively 

participate in the working group, attend 

all meetings, and provide written 

comments when requested. You must 

devote the resources necessary to 

support the working group in meeting 

any assigned deadlines. You must keep 

your management and those you may 

represent advised of working group 

activities and decisions to ensure the 

proposed technical solutions do not 

conflict with the position of those you 

represent. Once the working group has 

begun deliberations, members will not 

be added or substituted without the 

approval of the ARAC Chair, the FAA, 

including the Designated Federal 

Officer, and the Working Group Chair. 

The Secretary of Transportation 

determined the formation and use of the 

ARAC is necessary and in the public 

interest in connection with the 

performance of duties imposed on the 

FAA by law. 

The ARAC meetings are open to the 

public. However, meetings of the 

Rotorcraft Bird Strike Working Group 

are not open to the public, except to the 

extent individuals with an interest and 

expertise are selected to participate. The 

FAA will make no public 

announcement of working group 

meetings. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 19, 

2016. 

Lirio Liu, 

Designated Federal Officer, Aviation 

Rulemaking Advisory Committee. 

[FR Doc. 2016–09781 Filed 4–26–16; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

[Summary Notice No. 2016–59] 

Petition for Exemption; Summary of 

Petition Received; Bombardier 

Aerospace 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This notice contains a 

summary of a petition seeking relief 

from specified requirements of Title 14 

of the Code of Federal Regulations. The 

purpose of this notice is to improve the 

public’s awareness of, and participation 

in, the FAA’s exemption process. 

Neither publication of this notice nor 


asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES