17042 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 58 / Friday, March 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, 

B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR 

TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND 

REPORTING POINTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR 

part 71 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 

40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 

1959–1963 Comp., p. 389. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

■ 2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, 

Airspace Designations and Reporting 

Points, dated August 10, 2021, and 

effective September 15, 2021, is 

amended as follows: 

Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal 

Airways. 

* * * * * 

V–26 [Amended] 

From Blue Mesa, CO; Montrose, CO; 13 

miles 112 MSL, 131 MSL, Grand Junction, 

CO; Meeker, CO; Cherokee, WY; Muddy 

Mountain, WY; 14 miles, 37 miles 75 MSL, 

84 miles 90 MSL, Rapid City, SD; Philip, SD; 

to Pierre, SD. From Redwood Falls, MN; 

Farmington, MN; to Eau Claire, WI. From 

Green Bay, WI; INT Green Bay 116° and 

White Cloud, MI, 302° radials; to White 

Cloud. 

* * * * * 

V–63 [Amended] 

From Razorback, AR; Springfield, MO; 

Hallsville, MO; Quincy, IL; Burlington, IA; 

Moline, IL; to Davenport, IA. From Janesville, 

WI; Badger, WI; to Oshkosh, WI. From 

Rhinelander, WI; to Houghton, MI. Excluding 

that airspace at and above 10,000 feet MSL 

from 5 NM north to 46 NM north of Quincy, 

IL, when the Howard West MOA is active. 

* * * * * 

Paragraph 6011 United States Area 

Navigation Routes. 

* * * * * 

T–464 CUSAY, WI to CHURP, WI [New] 

CUSAY, WI WP (Lat. 46°01′07.84′′ N, long. 091°26′47.14′′ W) 

TONOC, WI WP (Lat. 45°03′47.56′′ N, long. 091°38′11.87′′ W) 

EDGRR, WI WP (Lat. 44°51′31.83′′ N, long. 089°56′43.06′′ W) 

HEVAV, WI WP (Lat. 44°50′48.43′′ N, long. 089°35′12.51′′ W) 

CHURP, WI FIX (Lat. 44°42′54.82′′ N, long. 088°56′48.69′′ W) 

* * * * * 

Paragraph 7001 Domestic Low Altitude 

Report Points. 

* * * * * 

Wausau, WI [Removed] 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 22, 

2022. 

Scott M. Rosenbloom, 

Manager, Airspace Rules and Regulations. 

[FR Doc. 2022–06312 Filed 3–24–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Air Force 

32 CFR Part 861 

[Docket No. USAF–2019–HQ–0010] 

RIN 0701–AA88 

Department of Defense Commercial Air 

Transportation Quality and Safety 

Review Program 

AGENCY: Department of the Air Force, 

Department of Defense. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of the Air 

Force (DAF) proposes to amend portions 

of its regulations in order to update and 

clarify references and terminology 

relating to the Department of Defense 

(DOD) Commercial Air Transportation 

Quality and Safety Review Program. It 

also extends to DOD contracts for 

charter air transportation services the 

existing DOD policy prohibiting the use 

of foreign air carriers who are not in 

compliance with International Civil 

Aviation Organization standards. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

May 24, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number and or 

Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) and 

title, by any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Portal: https:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: DOD cannot receive written 

comments at this time due to the 

COVID–19 pandemic. Comments should 

be sent electronically to the docket 

listed above. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number or RIN for this Federal 

Register document. The general policy 

for comments and other submissions 

from members of the public is to make 

these submissions available for public 

viewing at https://www.regulations.gov 

as they are received without change, 

including any personal identifiers or 

contact information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Matthew Berry, DOD Commercial Airlift 

Division, AMC/A3B, 402 Scott Drive, 

Unit 3A1, Scott Air Force Base, Illinois 

62225–5302, (618) 229–2082, 

matthew.berry@us.af.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The Department of Defense 

Commercial Air Transportation Quality 

and Safety Review Program establishes 

the safety requirements and criteria for 

evaluating civil air carriers, to include 

foreign air carriers, providing air 

transportation to the DOD. As stated in 

32 CFR 861.6, foreign air carriers 

providing or seeking to provide services 

to DOD are subject to review and, if 

appropriate, approval by DOD. 

Application of the criteria and 

requirements of this rule and the degree 

of oversight to be exercised by DOD over 

a foreign air carrier depends upon the 

type of services performed and, in some 

instances, by the quality of oversight 

exercised by the foreign air carrier’s 

Civilian Aviation Authority (CAA). The 

scope and frequency of review of any 

given foreign air carrier under this rule 

will be at the discretion of the 

Commercial Airlift Review Board 

(CARB) or higher authority. This rule 

was last revised on October 28, 2002 (67 

FR 65698), to add § 861.7 relating to the 

disclosure of voluntarily provided 

safety-related information and to make 

minor administrative adjustments. 

DOD’s internal instruction associated 

with this rule was last updated on May 

7, 2021, as DOD Instruction (DODI) 

4500.53, ‘‘DoD Commercial Air 

Transportation Quality and Safety 

Review Program’’ (available at https://

www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/ 

Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/ 

450053p.pdf?ver=2019-02-26-144429- 

747). 

II. Authority for This Regulatory Action 

This action is authorized by 10 U.S.C. 

113, 2640 and 9013. Sections 113 and 

9013 contain the authority of the 

Secretary of Defense and the Secretary 

of the Air Force, respectively, to publish 

regulations necessary for the 

functioning of the Department of 

Defense and the Department of the Air 

Force. Section 2640 requires the 

Secretary of Defense to establish the 

Department of Defense Commercial 

Airlift Review Board; specifies 

minimum requirements which must be 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 58 / Friday, March 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 17043 

met by air carriers in order to be eligible 

for contracts to provide charter 

passenger air transportation services to 

the Department of Defense; and sets 

minimum requirements for an 

inspection regime. Further, section 2640 

requires the Secretary of Defense to 

prescribe regulations to implement the 

requirements of section 2640. 

Additionally, section 2640 prescribes 

requirements relating to the provision, 

protection, and dissemination of safetyrelated information. 

III. Summary of Proposed Changes to 

the Rule 

The proposed revisions clarify 

aircrew flying a charter mission on 

behalf of the Department of Defense 

must, without exception, have a 

minimum of 250 hours flying time in 

the type of aircraft being operated. The 

rule also proposes to elaborate and 

revise several aspects of the oversight 

program to more closely resemble 

Federal Aviation Administration 

processes, thus reducing complexity 

and the need to maintain duplicative 

and potentially conflicting processes. 

Every country has a National Aviation 

Authority, also known as a Civil 

Aviation Authority, which governs and 

regulates civil aviation. Each aviation 

authority oversees aircraft 

airworthiness, the licensing of pilots, air 

traffic controllers, flight dispatchers, 

and maintenance engineers, licensing of 

airports, and other aviation standards. 

The ultimate goal of these aviation 

authorities is aviation safety through 

regulation and oversight. All pilots must 

meet the standards of their respective 

countries where they fly. The 

regulations at 32 CFR 861.*(d) prohibit 

DOD personnel on official business, 

except for the first leg into and the last 

leg out of the U.S., from using foreign 

air carriers from countries in which the 

Civil Aviation Authority is not in 

compliance with International Civil 

Aviation Organization standards as 

determined by the International Civil 

Aviation Organization, or Federal 

Aviation Administration, or other 

aviation safety oversight body. This rule 

would extend that policy to any DOD 

contract for charter air transportation 

services with an air carrier. 

Major provisions include: 

(1) Amend § 861.3, ‘‘Definitions.’’ The 

term ‘‘Operational support services’’ in 

paragraph (l) is proposed to be replaced 

with ‘‘Other commercial air services’’ in 

order to be consistent with the statutory 

definition used by the Federal Aviation 

Administration in title 49, U.S. Code, 

section 40102(a)(41)(E). The substance 

of the definition is otherwise 

unchanged. This change in terminology 

will be made throughout part 861. 

(2) Amend § 861.3, ‘‘Definitions.’’ The 

term ‘‘paratroop drops’’ is proposed to 

be deleted from the list of examples in 

the definition of ‘‘Air transportation’’ in 

paragraph (b), and inserted in the list of 

examples of ‘‘Other commercial air 

services’’ in paragraph (l). In addition, 

the terms ‘‘target towing’’, ‘‘chaff 

dispensing’’, and ‘‘electronic 

countermeasures target flights’’ have 

been deleted from the list of examples. 

Both changes are intended to more 

closely align with the statutory 

definitions of ‘‘air transportation’’ and 

‘‘other commercial air services’’ used by 

the Federal Aviation Administration in 

title 49, U.S. Code, sections 40102(a)(5) 

and 40102(a)(41)(E), respectively. 

(3) Amend § 861.4(e)(3)(vi), ‘‘Aircrew 

scheduling.’’ Paragraph (e)(3)(vi) 

currently requires the Captain and first 

officer flying Department of Defense 

charter passenger missions have at least 

250 hours of combined experience in 

the type of aircraft being operated. 

However, an exception to this 

requirement is provided for aircraft new 

to the air carrier. This rule proposes to 

delete this exception in order to ensure 

aircrew flying Department of Defense 

charter missions have adequate 

experience in the type of aircraft being 

flown. 

(4) Amend § 861.4(e)(3)(ix), ‘‘DOD 

charter procedures.’’ Paragraph (e)(3)(ix) 

requires an air carrier have procedures 

reflecting that weights and balance 

information are used in computing 

aircraft weight and balance. A sentence 

is proposed to be added requiring that 

personnel loading an aircraft be 

adequately trained on aircraft loading 

and restraint, special cargo, weight and 

balance, and hazardous/dangerous 

goods procedures. This revision would 

align the qualifications required for 

personnel loading an aircraft with 

recent Federal Aviation Administration 

cargo loading regulations and guidance 

in 14 CFR 121.665, 14 CFR 121.1001, 

Advisory Circular 120.85A and Flight 

Standards Information Manual System 

8900.1 Volume 3, with which air 

carriers are already in compliance. 

(5) Amend § 861.4(e)(4)(iii), ‘‘Quality 

assurance.’’ Paragraph (e)(4)(iii) 

addresses the requirement that an air 

carrier have a quality assurance program 

that analyzes the performance and 

effectiveness of maintenance activities 

and inspections. This requirement is 

alluded to in § 861.4(e)(2). This change 

proposes to add language making clear 

that the Department of Defense will 

expect the air carrier to audit results of 

the program to determine the root cause 

of discrepancies. 

(6) Amend § 861.4(e)(4)(vi), 

‘‘Maintenance control,’’ is proposed to 

be revised to require that air carriers 

have programs in place to adequately 

plan for all maintenance requirements. 

While planning for maintenance is 

inherent in maintenance control and is 

implied in the words ‘‘method to 

control maintenance activities’’, this 

revision clarifies that formal programs 

are necessary and mirrors Federal 

Aviation Administration requirements. 

(7) Amend § 861.5, ‘‘DOD Commercial 

Airlift Review Board procedures,’’ is 

proposed to be revised to replace 

‘‘CINCTRANS’’ with 

‘‘CDRUSTRANSCOM’’ wherever 

‘‘CINCTRANS’’ appears. This reflects a 

change in the acronym used to refer to 

the Commander of the United States 

Transportation Command. 

(8) Amend § 861.6(d), ‘‘DOD review of 

foreign air carriers,’’ is proposed to be 

revised to add a sentence reflecting an 

established, longstanding Department of 

Defense policy in Department of 

Defense Instruction 4500.53, of not 

contracting with foreign air carriers 

from countries whose Civil Aviation 

Authority has been determined to not 

meet International Civil Aviation 

Organization standards. 

IV. Expected Impact of This Proposed 

Rule 

Affected Population 

Providers of air transportation and 

other commercial air services to the 

Department of Defense consist of 

approximately 100 U.S. air carriers and 

operators offering services under parts 

105, 121, 125, 133, and 135 of the 

Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) of 

title 14 CFR, and foreign air carriers and 

operators offering services under the 

equivalent Civil Aviation Authority 

regulations applicable to their 

operations. Both U.S. and foreign air 

carriers and operators range from large 

corporations with hundreds of aircraft, 

to small entities operating a handful of 

aircraft. Whether domestic or foreign, 

and regardless of size, air carriers and 

operators offering air transportation or 

other commercial air services to the 

Department of Defense must meet the 

requirements specified by law and this 

rule to be eligible for Department 

business, and must comply with the 

oversight requirements of the law and 

this rule to remain eligible for 

Department business. Changes proposed 

in this rule should not prompt air 

carriers or operators to either leave or 

join the air carrier survey and analysis 

program. Additionally, the proposed 

changes will not expand or contract 

carrier eligibility to participate in the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
17044 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 58 / Friday, March 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

program. Furthermore, the proposed 

changes will not impact the overall 

economics for carriers in the aviation 

industry marketplace. This proposed 

rule is not expected to impact on the 

public or state, local, or tribal 

governments. 

Costs 

This rule has been was first 

promulgated in 1987 (see 52 FR 37609 

(October 8, 1987)). The proposed 

revisions are not expected to increase 

costs compliance. Although several 

revisions alter minor aspects of the 

existing oversight program, they are 

intended to streamline oversight 

processes by more closely aligning them 

with current Federal Aviation 

Administration guidance. This 

harmonization may decrease costs for 

U.S. carriers although these savings may 

not be appreciable. Operators of 

paratroop drop services may realize 

slightly more appreciable savings as a 

result of being considered a provider of 

‘‘other commercial air services’’ rather 

than of ‘‘air transportation services,’’ 

since the latter results in an increased 

level of oversight. Conversely, the 

failure to enact the proposed changes 

may result in increased costs to U.S. air 

carriers and operators as specific 

requirements and procedures of this 

program increasingly diverge from those 

required by the FAA, requiring that 

separate compliance processes be 

maintained that cover the same 

substantive area. 

Benefits 

The affected air carriers and operators 

will benefit from the clarifications, 

updated information, and alignment of 

processes with those of the Federal 

Aviation Administration resulting from 

this proposed revision. This, in turn, 

should lead to a more effective safety 

oversight program, benefitting them, the 

Department of Defense, members of the 

armed forces transported on the 

contracted aircraft, and the public at 

large. 

Alternatives 

The basic parameters of the program 

described in this Part are specified in 

section 2640 of title 10, U.S. Code, and 

serve to limit the scope of alternatives 

available. 

• No action: This alternative would 

leave the existing rule in place without 

change. Parts of this rule are obsolete as 

a result of changes in terminology, 

responsible offices, and the evolution of 

technology since 2002. No action would 

also result in the loss of an opportunity 

to incorporate lessons learned since the 

last revision in 2002. The rule would 

consequently continue to become less 

effective over time, as the FAA adopts 

updated, more stringent standards and 

practices that are not reflected in the 

DOD standards and practices reflected 

in this rule. This course of action is 

therefore not preferred. 

• Expansion of the scope of the 

oversight program. Expansion of the 

scope of the oversight program would go 

beyond that which is necessary to 

ensure the safe transportation of 

members of the armed forces as well as 

beyond the scope of what the law 

requires. This course of action is 

therefore not preferred, as it would 

impose increased costs on the 

Department of Defense and all affected 

parties to no discernable end. 

• Contracting the scope of the 

oversight program. Contracting the 

scope of the oversight program would 

result in a failure to do as the law 

requires, although it would be less 

burdensome and expensive for the 

affected parties. Consequently, this 

course of action is not preferred. 

Regulatory Reviews 

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 

direct agencies to assess all costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, distribute impacts, and equity). 

Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the 

importance of quantifying both costs 

and benefits, of reducing costs, of 

harmonizing rules, and of promoting 

flexibility. This rule has been 

designated as a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ but not economically significant 

under section 3(f) of Executive Order 

12866. 

Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq. generally provides 

before a rule may take effect, the agency 

promulgating the rule must submit a 

rule report, which includes a copy of 

the rule, to each House of the Congress 

and to the Comptroller General of the 

United States. The DAF will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The DAF has determined the 

proposed amendments of the 

Department of Defense Commercial Air 

Transportation Quality and Safety 

Review Program is not a major federal 

action within the meaning of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). The 

proposed amendments do not result in 

any impacts to human health or the 

environment. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

It has been determined this regulatory 

action does not impose reporting or 

recordkeeping requirements under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq.). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The DAF has certified this regulatory 

action is not subject to the relevant 

provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)). The 

Secretary of the Air Force has certified 

that this rule is exempt from the 

requirements of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 to 612, 

because this rule does not have a 

significant economic impact on small 

entities as defined by the Act, and does 

not impose any obligatory information 

requirements beyond internal DAF use. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 

(2 U.S.C. 1532) requires agencies to 

assess anticipated costs and benefits 

before issuing any rule whose mandates 

require spending in any one year of 

$100 million in 1995 dollars, updated 

annually for inflation. This regulatory 

action does not contain any unfunded 

mandate as described in UMRA, and 

does not significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments. This action only 

addresses the Department of Defense 

Commercial Air Transportation Quality 

and Safety Review Program. 

Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132 establishes 

certain requirements an agency must 

meet when it promulgates a proposed 

rule (and subsequent final rule) that 

imposes substantial direct requirement 

costs on State and local governments, 

preempts State law, or otherwise has 

federalism implications. The DAF has 

determined this regulatory action does 

not contain policies with federalism as 

that term is defined in E.O. 13132. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 58 / Friday, March 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 17045 

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 861 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Air carriers, Aviation safety, 

Military air transportation. 

Accordingly, 32 CFR part 861 is 

proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 861—DEPARTMENT OF 

DEFENSE COMMERCIAL AIR 

TRANSPORTATION QUALITY AND 

SAFETY REVIEW PROGRAM 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 861 

is revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 10 U.S.C. 113, 2640, 9013. 

§ 861.1 [Amended] 

■ 2. Amend § 861.1(b) by removing the 

word ‘‘Directive’’ and adding in its 

place the word ‘‘Instruction’’. 

§ 861.2 [Amended] 

■ 3. Amend § 861.2 by: 

■ a. Removing the word ‘‘Directive’’ and 

adding in its place the word 

‘‘Instruction’’. 

■ b. Removing the words ‘‘Commanderin-Chief (CINC)’’ and adding in their 

place ‘‘Commander’’. 

■ c. Removing the word 

‘‘USTRANSCOM’’ and adding in its 

place the word ‘‘CDRUSTRANSCOM’’. 

■ d. Removing the words ‘‘the CINC’’ 

and adding in their place the words ‘‘the 

CDRUSTRANSCOM’’. 

■ 4. Amend § 861.3 by: 

■ a. In paragraph (b), removing the 

words ‘‘paratrooper drops’’. 

■ b. In paragraph (f)(3), removing the 

words ‘‘Commander-in-Chief’’ and 

adding ‘‘Commander’’ in their place and 

removing ‘‘, or USCINCTRANS’’. 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (f)(4) and (l). 

The revisions read as follows: 

§ 861.3 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(4) Secretary of Defense. 

* * * * * 

(l) Other commercial air services. 

Flights performed by air carriers that 

use fixed or rotary-winged aircraft to 

provide services other than air 

transportation services as defined in 

paragraph (b) of this section. Examples 

include, but are not limited to, 

paratroop drops, range instrumentation 

and services, and sling loads. Air 

carriers providing only other 

commercial air services do not require 

advance DOD approval and are not 

subject to the initial or periodic on-site 

survey requirements under this part, 

unless specified in paragraph (b) or 

directed by the CARB or higher 

authority. All air carriers providing 

other commercial air services to DOD 

must have a FAA or CAA certificate and 

are required to maintain applicable FAA 

or CAA standards absent deviation 

authority obtained pursuant to 14 CFR 

119.55 or similar CAA rules. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Amend § 861.4 by: 

■ a. In paragraph (b)(3), adding the 

words ‘‘as specified in the reference in 

§ 861.1(b) or’’ after the words ‘‘this part 

may,’’. 

■ b. In paragraph (c)(2), removing the 

letters ‘‘DOB’’ and adding in their place 

‘‘A3B’’. 

■ c. In paragraph (e)(1)(ii), removing 

‘‘FAA part 121, 125, 127, or 135 (14 CFR 

121, 125, 127, or 135)’’ and adding in its 

place ‘‘FAA part 121 or 135 (14 CFR 

part 121 or 135)’’. 

■ d. In paragraph (e)(1)(iii): 

■ i. In Example 1, removing ‘‘DC–10’’ 

wherever it appears and adding in its 

place ‘‘B–767’’. 

■ ii. In Example 2: 

■ A. Removing ‘‘MD–11’’ wherever it 

appears and adding in its place ‘‘B– 

767’’; and 

■ B. Removing ‘‘B–757’’ wherever it 

appears and adding in its place ‘‘A– 

330’’. 

■ e. Revising the final sentence of 

paragraph (e)(3)(iv). 

■ f. Revising paragraph (e)(3)(vi). 

■ g. In paragraph (e)(3)(viii), adding a 

sentence at the end of the paragraph. 

■ h. In paragraph (e)(3)(ix), adding a 

sentence at the end of the paragraph. 

■ i. Revising paragraph (e)(4). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 861.4 DOD air transportation quality and 

safety requirements. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(iv) * * * Training received is 

documented, and established processes 

ensure that documentation is 

maintained in a current status. 

* * * * * 

(vi) Aircrew scheduling. A closely 

monitored system that evaluates 

operational risks, experience levels of 

crewmembers, and ensures the proper 

pairing and qualification of aircrews on 

all flights is required. New captains are 

scheduled with highly experienced first 

officers, and new or low-time first 

officers are scheduled with experienced 

captains. Captains and first officers 

assigned to DOD charter passenger 

missions possess at least 250 hours 

combined experience in the type aircraft 

being operated. The scheduling system 

involves an established flight duty time 

program for aircrews, including flight 

attendants, carefully managed so as to 

ensure proper crew rest and considers 

quality-of-life factors. Attention is given 

to the stress on aircrews during strikes, 

mergers, or periods of labormanagement difficulties. 

* * * * * 

(viii) * * * Personnel assigned these 

duties are properly trained and 

certificated if required. 

(ix) * * * Personnel responsible for 

the loading of aircraft receive 

appropriate initial and recurrent 

training on aircraft loading and 

restraint, special cargo, weight and 

balance, and hazardous/dangerous 

goods procedures. 

* * * * * 

(4) Quality and safety requirements— 

maintenance—(i) Management. 

Maintenance supervisors ensure all 

personnel understand that in spite of 

scheduling pressure, peer pressure, 

supervisory pressure, or other factors, 

the airplane must be airworthy prior to 

flight. Passenger and employee safety is 

a paramount management concern. 

Quality, completeness, and integrity of 

work are trademarks of the maintenance 

manager and maintenance department. 

Nonconformance to established 

maintenance practices is not tolerated. 

Management ensures contracted 

maintenance, including repair and 

overhaul facilities, is performed by 

maintenance organizations acceptable to 

the CAA. 

(ii) Maintenance personnel. Air 

carriers are expected to hire and train 

the number of employees required to 

safely maintain the company aircraft 

and support the scope of the 

maintenance operations both at home 

station (the company’s primary facility) 

and at en route locations. These 

personnel ensure that all maintenance 

tasks, including required inspections 

and airworthiness directives, are 

performed; that maintenance actions are 

properly documented, and that the 

discrepancies identified between 

inspections are corrected. Mechanics are 

fit for duty, properly certificated, the 

company verifies certification, and these 

personnel possess the knowledge and 

the necessary aircraft-specific 

experience to accomplish the 

maintenance tasks. Noncertified and 

inexperienced personnel received 

proper supervision. Freedom from 

alcohol abuse and illegal drugs is 

required. 

(iii) Quality assurance. A system 

which continuously analyzes the 

performance and effectiveness of 

maintenance activities and maintenance 

inspection programs is required. This 

system evaluates such functions as 

reliability reports, audits, component 

tear-down reports, inspection 

procedures and results, tool calibration 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
17046 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 58 / Friday, March 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

program, real-time aircraft maintenance 

actions, warranty programs, and other 

maintenance functions. The extent of 

this program is directly related to the air 

carrier’s size and scope of operation. 

Audit results are analyzed in order to 

determine the root cause of 

discrepancies. The cause of any 

recurring discrepancy or negative trend 

is researched and eliminated. Action is 

taken to prevent recurrence of these 

discrepancies and preventive actions are 

monitored to ensure effectiveness. The 

results of preventive actions are 

provided to appropriate maintenance 

technicians. Also required is a system to 

evaluate contract vendors, suppliers, 

and their products. 

(iv) Maintenance inspection activity. 

A process to ensure required aircraft 

inspections are completed and the 

results properly documented is 

required. Inspection personnel are 

identified, trained (initial and 

recurrent), and provided guidance 

regarding inspector responsibility and 

authority. The inspection activity is 

normally a separate entity within the 

maintenance department. 

(v) Maintenance training. Training is 

conducted commensurate with the size 

and type of maintenance functions 

being performed. Continuing education 

and progressive experience are provided 

for all maintenance personnel. 

Orientation, familiarization, on-the-job, 

and appropriate recurrent training for 

all full and part-time personnel are 

expected. The use of such training aids 

as mockups, simulators, and computerbased training enhances maintenance 

training efforts and is desired. Training 

documentation is required; it is current, 

complete, well maintained, and 

correctly identifies any special 

authorization such as inspection and 

airworthiness release. Trainers are fully 

qualified in the subject manner. 

(vi) Maintenance control/planning. A 

method to control maintenance 

activities, track program requirements, 

and track aircraft status is required. 

Qualified personnel monitor 

maintenance preplanning, ensure 

completion of maintenance actions, and 

track deferred discrepancies. Deferred 

maintenance actions are identified to 

supervisory personnel and corrected in 

accordance with the criteria provided by 

the manufacturer or regulatory agency. 

Constant and effective communications 

between maintenance and flight 

operations ensure an exchange of 

critical information. In addition, 

programs are in place that adequately 

plan for all maintenance requirements. 

(vii) Aircraft maintenance program. 

Aircraft are properly certified and 

maintained in a manner that ensures 

they are airworthy and safe. The 

program includes the use of 

manufacturer’s and CAA information, as 

well as company policies and 

procedures. Airworthiness directives are 

complied with in the prescribed time 

frame, and service bulletins are 

evaluated for applicable action. 

Approved reliability programs are 

proactive, providing management with 

visibly on the effectiveness of the 

maintenance program; attention is given 

to initial component and older aircraft 

inspection intervals and to deferred 

maintenance actions. 

(viii) Maintenance records. 

Maintenance actions are well 

documented and provide a complete 

record of maintenance accomplished 

and maintenance required. Such records 

as aircraft log books and maintenance 

documentation are legible, dated, clean, 

readily identifiable, and maintained in 

an orderly fashion. Inspection 

compliance, airworthiness release, and 

maintenance release records, etc., are 

completed and signed by approved 

personnel. 

(ix) Aircraft appearance. Aircraft 

exteriors, including all visible surfaces 

and components, are clean and well 

maintained. Interiors are also clean and 

orderly. Required safety equipment and 

systems are available and operable. 

(x) Fueling and servicing. Aircraft fuel 

is free from contamination, and 

company fuel facilities (farms) are 

inspected and results documented. 

Procedures and instructions pertaining 

to servicing, handling, and storing fuel 

and oil meet established safety 

standards. Procedures for monitoring 

and verifying vendor servicing practices 

are included in this program. 

(xi) Maintenance manuals. Company 

policy manuals and manufacturer’s 

maintenance manuals are current, 

available, clear, complete, and adhered 

to by maintenance personnel. These 

manuals provide maintenance 

personnel with standardized procedures 

for maintaining company aircraft. 

Management policies, lines of authority, 

and company maintenance procedures 

are documented in company manuals 

and kept in a current status. 

(xii) Maintenance facilities/stores. 

Well maintained, clean maintenance 

facilities, adequate for the level of 

aircraft repair authorized in the 

company’s CAA certificate are expected. 

Safety equipment is available in 

hangars, shops, etc., and is serviceable. 

Special tools and equipment are 

properly calibrated and managed. 

Shipping, receiving, and stores areas are 

likewise clean and orderly. Parts are 

correctly packaged, tagged, segregated, 

and shelf life properly monitored. 

* * * * * 

§ 861.5 [Amended] 

■ 6. Amend § 861.5 by: 

■ b. In paragraph (b), adding the words 

‘‘as specified in the reference in 

§ 861.1(b) or’’ after the words ‘‘services 

to DOD which,’’. 

■ b. In paragraphs (f)(1) and (3) and 

(g)(4)(i), removing the word 

‘‘USCINCTRANS’’ and adding in its 

place the words ‘‘the 

CDRUSTRANSCOM’’. 

■ c. In paragraph (g)(5), removing 

‘‘USCINCTRANS’’ and ‘‘(Acquisition, 

Technology and Logistics) 

(USD(AT&L))’’ and adding ‘‘the 

CDRUSTRANSCOM’’ and ‘‘(Acquisition 

and Sustainment) (USD(A&S))’’ in their 

places, respectively. 

■ 7. Amend § 861.6 by revising 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 861.6 DOD review of foreign air carriers. 

* * * * * 

(d) Foreign air carriers from countries 

in which the CAA is not in compliance 

with ICAO standards. DOD will not 

contract for charter air transportation 

services with an air carrier from a 

country in which the CAA is not in 

compliance with ICAO standards. 

Unless otherwise authorized, use of 

foreign air carriers by DOD personnel on 

official business from countries in 

which the CAA is not in compliance 

with ICAO standards is prohibited 

except for the last leg into and the first 

leg out of the U.S. on such carriers. This 

includes foreign air carriers performing 

any portion of a route awarded to a U.S. 

air carrier under the GSA City Pair 

Program pursuant to a code-sharing 

agreement with that U.S. air carrier. 

* * * * * 

§ § 861.2, 861.3, 861.4, 861.5, and 861.6 

[Amended] 

■ 8. In addition to the amendments set 

forth above, in 32 CFR part 861, remove 

the words ‘‘operational support’’ and 

add in their place the words ‘‘other 

commercial air’’ in the following places: 

■ a. Section 861.2 (2 places); 

■ b. Section 861.3(a), (e) and (l)–(2 

places); 

■ c. Section 861.4(a)–(2 places), (b)(3), 

(c)(3), and (d); 

■ d. Section 861.5(b), (e), (g)(2)(v) and 

(g)(5); and 

■ e. Section 861.6(f). 

§ § 861.3, 861.4, and 861.5 [Amended] 

■ 9. In addition to the amendments set 

forth above, in 32 CFR part 861, remove 

the words ‘‘Air Carrier Survey and 

Analysis Office’’ and add in their place 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 58 / Friday, March 25, 2022 / Proposed Rules 17047 

the words ‘‘Commercial Airlift 

Division’’ in the following places: 

■ a. Section 861.3(e), (f)(1), and (k); 

■ b. Section 861.4(c)(2); and (e) 

■ c. Section 861.5(e), (g)(2)(i), 

(g)(2)(iii)(A), and (g)(4)(i). 

■ d. Section 861.6(c) 

Adriane S. Paris, 

Department of the Air Force Federal Register 

Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2022–05715 Filed 3–24–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–10–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 110 

[Docket Number USCG–2020–0216] 

RIN 1625–AA01 

Anchorage Grounds; Cape Fear River 

Approach, North Carolina 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS). 

ACTION: Supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing 

to amend the anchorage regulations for 

Lockwoods Folly Inlet, NC, and adjacent 

navigable waters, by establishing a new 

offshore anchorage, relocating the 

existing explosives anchorage and 

amending the anchorage regulations. 

The purpose of this supplemental 

proposed rule is to improve navigation 

and public safety by accommodating 

recent and anticipated future growth in 

cargo vessel traffic and vessel size that 

call on Military Ocean Terminal Sunny 

Point and the Port of Wilmington, North 

Carolina. We invite your comments on 

this supplemental proposed rulemaking. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before April 25, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2020–0216 using the Federal Decision 

Making Portal at https://

www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public 

Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for 

further instructions on submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions about this proposed 

rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant 

Gregory Kennerley, Sector North 

Carolina, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 

(910) 772–2230, email 

Gregory.M.Kennerley@uscg.mil; or Mr. 

Matthew Creelman, Waterways 

Management Branch, Fifth Coast Guard 

District, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 

(757) 398–6225, email 

Matthew.K.Creelman2@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations 

BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FR Federal Register 

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking 

SNPRM Supplemental notice of proposed 

rulemaking 

§ Section 

U.S.C. United States Code 

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal 

Basis 

On May 8, 2020, the Coast Guard 

published a notification of inquiry in 

the Federal Register (85 FR 27343) to 

solicit public comments on whether we 

should initiate a rulemaking to establish 

an anchorage ground offshore in the 

approaches to the Cape Fear River, 

North Carolina, and to increase the size 

and relocate the existing Lockwood’s 

Folly Inlet explosives anchorage. After 

receiving favorable comments, the Coast 

Guard decided to propose the 

rulemaking. On August 17, 2021, the 

Coast Guard published a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in 

Federal Register (86 FR 45936), stating 

why we issued the NPRM, and invited 

comments on our proposed anchorage. 

During the comment period that ended 

on October 18, 2021, we received five 

comment letters in response. The Coast 

Guard is now issuing this supplemental 

notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) 

to solicit comments on changes made to 

the NPRM. 

The purpose of this proposed rule is 

to accommodate recent and anticipated 

future growth in cargo vessel traffic and 

vessel size that call on Military Ocean 

Terminal Sunny Point and the Port of 

Wilmington, improve navigation and 

public safety, and to preserve areas 

traditionally used for anchoring. 

The legal basis and authorities for this 

notice of proposed rulemaking are 

found in 46 U.S.C.70006, 33 CFR 1.05– 

1, DHS Delegation No. 0170.1, which 

collectively authorize the Coast Guard 

to propose, establish, and define 

regulatory anchorage grounds. 

III. Discussion Comments, Changes, and 

Proposed Rule 

As noted above, we received five 

comments on our NPRM published 

August 17, 2021. One was in full 

support of the proposed rule, one had 

concerns over possible area use conflicts 

with offshore wind energy development, 

and three were regarding potential 

conflict with the anchorage and an 

artificial reef. The following sections 

detail the concerns raised by these 

comments. As a result, the Coast Guard 

has issued this SNPRM with proposed 

changes to the regulatory text of the 

rule. Specifically, we propose the 

western boundary and coordinates of 

the proposed Explosives Anchorage B 

be moved 1000 yards eastward to avoid 

a conflict with a North Carolina 

Division of Marine Fisheries Artificial 

Reef (AR–455). The remainder of the 

proposed rule remains unchanged. 

A. Offshore Wind Development 

One commenter raised concerns that 

the proposed anchorage would take up 

an area that could be utilized for 

offshore wind energy development, and 

by doing so, would deprive the local 

economy of investment and energy 

resulting from the development. The 

Coast Guard finds this comment to be 

not applicable to this particular 

rulemaking as the proposed anchorage 

area does not overlap or limit any 

known wind energy lease area as 

published by the Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management (BOEM), the lead 

agency in the U.S. offshore wind 

development. The Coast Guard works 

closely with BOEM in the planning of 

these offshore lease areas and has 

confirmed the area proposed for this 

rule is not under consideration for wind 

development. 

B. Artificial Reef 

There were three comments received 

by the Coast Guard with concerns that 

the westernmost boundary of the 

proposed Explosives Anchorage B 

overlapped the location of an artificial 

reef, North Carolina Division of Marine 

Fisheries’ Reef (AR–455). This overlap 

reveals potential hazards as anchoring 

vessels could damage the reef or 

possibly foul their anchors on the 

underwater structures. The Coast Guard 

agreed with these concerns and reached 

out to the North Carolina Division of 

Marine Fisheries to discuss a new 

agreeable boundary for the anchorage 

that would not conflict with AR–455. 

After reviewing the location of each of 

the underwater features within AR–455, 

the Coast Guard proposes to move the 

western boundary of Anchorage B 1000 

yards to the east of AR–455. This 

distance would prevent any vessel 

anchored within Anchorage B from 

damaging the reef or interfering with 

other vessels visiting the reef. This 

would reduce the overall size of 

anchorage area initially proposed, but 

the Coast Guard believes there is still 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1