Policy Regarding Living History Flight Experience Exemptions for Passenger Carrying Operations Conducted for Compensation and Hire in Other Than Standard Category Aircraft, 43012-43015 [2015-17966]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
43012
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 139 / Tuesday, July 21, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
Authority for This Rulemaking
§ 39.13
Title 49 of the United States Code
specifies the FAA’s authority to issue
rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I,
section 106, describes the authority of
the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII:
Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the Agency’s
authority.
We are issuing this rulemaking under
the authority described in Subtitle VII,
Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701:
‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that
section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in
air commerce by prescribing regulations
for practices, methods, and procedures
the Administrator finds necessary for
safety in air commerce. This regulation
is within the scope of that authority
because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on
products identified in this rulemaking
action.
■
Regulatory Findings
This AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I
certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation
in Alaska to the extent that it justifies
making a regulatory distinction, and
(4) Will not have a significant
economic impact, positive or negative,
on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation
safety, Incorporation by reference,
Safety.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority
delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as
follows:
PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS
DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Jul 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
[Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding
the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):
2015–14–05 Pratt & Whitney: Amendment
39–18203; Docket No. FAA–2014–1127;
Directorate Identifier 2014–NE–16–AD.
(a) Effective Date
This AD is effective August 25, 2015.
(b) Affected ADs
None.
(c) Applicability
This AD applies to all Pratt & Whitney
(PW) JT8D–217C and JT8D–219 turbofan
engines with low-pressure turbine (LPT)
shaft part numbers 783319, 783319–001,
783319–003, 783319–004, 783320, 783320–
001, 783320–003, 783320–004, 820514–001,
820514–003, 820514–004, or 820514–005,
installed.
(d) Unsafe Condition
This AD was prompted by reports of
cracking in the LPT shaft. We are issuing this
AD to prevent failure of the LPT shaft, which
could lead to an uncontained engine failure
and damage to the airplane.
(e) Compliance
Comply with this AD within the
compliance times specified, unless already
done.
(1) If the LPT shaft has 15,000 or fewer
cycles-since-new (CSN) on the effective date
of this AD, remove it from service before it
accumulates 20,000 CSN.
(2) If the LPT shaft has more than 15,000
CSN on the effective date of this AD, remove
it from service before it accumulates 5,000
additional cycles in service, or at the next
piece-part exposure after accumulating
20,000 CSN, whichever occurs first.
(3) After the effective date of this AD, do
not install any LPT shaft listed in paragraph
(c) of this AD that is at piece-part exposure
and exceeds the new life limit of 20,000 CSN,
into any engine.
(f) Definition
For the purpose of this AD, piece-part
exposure is when the LPT shaft is completely
disassembled from the engine.
(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
The Manager, Engine Certification Office,
FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to
make your request. You may email your
request to: ANE-AD-AMOC@faa.gov.
(h) Related Information
(1) For more information about this AD,
contact Jo-Ann Theriault, Aerospace
Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA,
Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
01803; phone: 781–238–7105; fax: 781–238–
7199; email: jo-ann.theriault@faa.gov.
(2) PW Service Bulletin No. JT8D 6504,
dated November 5, 2014, which is not
incorporated by reference in this AD, can be
obtained from PW using the contact
information in paragraph (h)(3) of this AD.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(3) For service information identified in
this AD, contact Pratt & Whitney, 400 Main
St., East Hartford, CT 06108; phone: 860–
565–8770; fax: 860–565–4503.
(4) You may view this service information
at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate,
12 New England Executive Park, Burlington,
MA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call 781–238–7125.
(i) Material Incorporated by Reference
None.
Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on
June 26, 2015.
Ann C. Mollica,
Acting Directorate Manager, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015–17710 Filed 7–20–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 91 and 119
[Docket No. FAA–FAA–2015–0517]
Policy Regarding Living History Flight
Experience Exemptions for Passenger
Carrying Operations Conducted for
Compensation and Hire in Other Than
Standard Category Aircraft
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of policy statement.
AGENCY:
With this document, the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
cancels all previous agency policies
pertaining to the carriage of passengers
for compensation on Living History
Flight Experience (LHFE) flights. This
policy statement announces the end of
FAA moratorium on new petitions for
exemption, or amendments to
exemptions from certain sections of
Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR) for the purpose of carrying
passengers for compensation or hire on
LHFE Flights.
DATES: The moratorium will end on July
21, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
General Aviation and Commercial
Division, General Aviation Operations
Branch (AFS–830), Flight Standards
Service, FAA, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone (202) 267–1100; 9-AFS-800Correspondence-Mail@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Background
The FAA has historically found the
preservation of U.S. aviation history to
be in the public interest, including
preservation of certain former military
E:\FR\FM\21JYR1.SGM
21JYR1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 139 / Tuesday, July 21, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
aircraft transferred to private
individuals or organizations for the
purpose of restoring and operating these
aircraft. In 1996, the FAA received
exemption requests from not-for-profit
organizations to permit the carriage of
persons for compensation in both
Limited and Experimental category,
former-military, historically-significant
aircraft. These requests offered to
provide a short in-flight experience to
these aircraft in exchange for
compensation, leading to the term
Nostalgia Flights, then later Living
History Flight Experience (LHFE), and
provided a means for private civilian
owners to offset the considerable
restoration, maintenance and
operational costs. The FAA determined
that, in certain cases, operators could
conduct LHFE flights at an acceptable
level of safety and in the public interest,
in accordance with appropriate
conditions and limitations.
These original requests involved
large, crew-served, piston-powered,
multi-engine World War II (WWII)
vintage aircraft. In order to maintain
safe operations of these aircraft, the
FAA required flight crewmembers to
meet certain qualifications and training
requirements that included FAAapproved training, maintaining training
records, and reporting procedures. As
the public availability of purchase for
former military aircraft increased, along
with an increase in public interest for
maintaining and operating these aircraft,
so grew the requests for LHFE relief.
In 2004, to address a range of new
aircraft requests and clarify the FAA’s
position, the FAA published a notice of
policy statement (FAA–2004–17648).
The policy limited LHFE relief to
slower, piston-powered, multi-engine
airplanes of WWII or earlier vintage,
citing the unique opportunity to
experience flight in aircraft such as the
B–17 Flying Fortress and B–24 Liberator
which could still be operated safely,
considering limited parts and specialtyfuel supplies. In addition, qualifying
aircraft would have no similar standard
airworthiness counterpart that could
allow a similar experience without the
need for regulatory relief. The FAA also
determined supersonic jets would not
be considered because their operational
speeds made it likely that any in-flight
emergency may result in serious injuries
or fatalities. The policy detailed that, in
permitting the carriage of passengers,
flight crewmembers were required to
meet more stringent pilot qualifications
as well as training requirements that
included an FAA-approved training
program, maintenance of training
records, and reporting procedures.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Jul 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
In the years that followed, the FAA
received petitions to operate a broad
range of aircraft, including large
turbojet-powered aircraft, foreignmanufactured aircraft and aircraft
models that remained in military
service, or were readily available in the
open market. The petitions raised
significant concerns within the FAA,
and led to a reexamination and
refinement of the criteria for issuing
exemptions pertaining to LHFE flights.
In 2007, after requesting and receiving
public comment on the matter, the FAA
published an updated policy statement
(72 FR 57196) that provided
consideration for any aircraft on a caseby-case basis, so long as the petitioner
demonstrates that (1) there is an
overriding public interest in providing a
financial means for a non-profit
organization to continue to preserve and
operate these historic aircraft, and (2)
adequate measures, including all
conditions and limitations stipulated in
the exemption, will be taken to ensure
safety. Additionally, the FAA refined
and expanded its previous list of
criteria, requiring numerous aircraftoperation components, including crew
qualification and training, aircraft
maintenance and inspection, passenger
safety and training, safety of the nonparticipating public, as well as
manufacturing criteria, and a
petitioner’s non-profit status. The FAA
also included consideration for the
number of existing operational aircraft
and petitioners available to provide the
historic service to the public.
The evolution of LHFE operations in
the private sector, along with the
availability of newer and more capable
former military aircraft, raised new
public safety and public policy
concerns. The FAA accommodated
several requests to operate more modern
military jet aircraft. Conditions and
limitations for operations grew in
number, and were, in some cases,
misinterpreted as permitting operations
that the FAA did not contemplate or
intend. Examples included cases of
passengers manipulating the aircraft
flight controls to proposals of LHFE
flights performing aerobatic maneuvers,
simulating aerial combat in the interest
of ‘‘historical experience.’’
Consequently, in 2011, the FAA
published a new policy statement
announcing a moratorium on LHFE
exemptions for new operators and the
addition of aircraft to existing LHFE
exemptions. The moratorium permitted
existing exemption holders to continue
operations, and to renew their
exemptions, but stated that the FAA
would add clarifying limitations to all
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
43013
LHFE petitions renewed or extended
during that time.
In June of 2012, the FAA held public
meetings to gather additional technical
input. Discussion addressed 35
questions posed by the FAA and
included as part of the meeting notice.
In addition to statements provided by
the public meeting attendees, over 500
comments were received in the docket
(Docket No. FAA–2012–0374)
established for public input. The
meeting was focused to address industry
comments related to the LHFE policy
notices of 2004 and 2007 and areas of
concern based on safety
recommendations, FAA internal
discussions, and post 2007
developments. Small work groups were
formed to discuss general policy,
exemption issuance, limitations,
weather minimums, pilot qualification
and currency, and maintenance and
inspection. The area of interest that
generated the most discussion was
regarding limitations placed on LHFE
operations—specifically, passengers
occupying crew seats or positions,
aerobatics, and requirements for
arresting gear for high performance jets.
The largest general policy topic
discussed was regarding whether the
FAA planned on excluding turbojets or
supersonic aircraft in the policy. The
work groups also explored criteria for
determining historical significance,
replicas, operational control and
responsible persons, manuals,
compliance history, and training
requirements.
The majority of the 519 written
comments were either in favor of
keeping the existing exemption policy
or expanding on its provisions. Fiftynine (11%) comment submissions
desired no changes to the current LHFE
policy. Eight commenters provided
detailed comments to each of the
questions posed within the FAA’s areas
of interest. In regards to training, safety
and operational control, a commenter
stated his belief that the employees/
pilots/crew of the aircraft for hire have
annual training and that the aircraft
should be on an FAA/manufacturer
approved inspection program, and that
this training and adherence to the
required and recommended inspections/
maintenance provides a reasonable level
of government protection to the flying
and non-flying public. Eight
commenters suggested a more restrictive
LHFE Exemption policy, and one
commenter supported the use of drug
testing for LHFE flight crews. One
commenter suggested that good
guidance already exists in the A008
Operations Specification of Part 135
certificate holders, and that much of
E:\FR\FM\21JYR1.SGM
21JYR1
43014
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 139 / Tuesday, July 21, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
that guidance can be reasonably applied
to LHFE. The FAA concurs and finds
good reason to include certain elements
found in part 135; specifically those
related to operational control and
document structure. 516 (99%) written
comments expressed support for LHFE
exemptions, while three (1%) were
opposed.
The FAA also held meetings with
curators at the Smithsonian National Air
and Space Museum and reviewed the
United States General Accounting Office
(GAO) report on Preserving DOD
Aircraft Significant to Aviation History
to understand how other organizations
determine ‘‘historical significance’’ as
part of determining criteria to satisfy
‘‘public interest’’.
Also during the moratorium, two
accidents involving LHFE operators
occurred which led the FAA to further
research and develop safety mitigations
to operational and maintenance issues
highlighted by the investigations. The
need to develop a safety and risk
management system as part of the new
policy was evident, and supported by
comments received. One such comment
stated, in part that it is important to try
and mitigate some of the risks and to
inform the public about the risks of the
activity.
Therefore, based on FAA research,
comments and transcripts of the public
meeting, as well as an evaluation of
public safety risks, the FAA finds good
reason to publish a new policy. While
the FAA is lifting the 2011 moratorium
with this policy, we are also setting
forth specific criteria that the FAA will
use in considering any LHFE petition
for exemption, or petition to extend or
amend an existing exemption.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
FAA Policy
The FAA announces the end of the
FAA-imposed moratorium on new
petitions for exemption, or amendments
to existing exemptions, from certain
sections of 14 CFR for the purpose of
carrying passengers for compensation or
hire on LHFE flights. The FAA is also
cancelling all previously issued LHFE
policy statements. The FAA will now
consider new petitions for exemption,
or requests for extensions or
amendments to current exemptions in
accordance with the following criteria.
A. Aircraft Must Be ‘‘Historically
Significant’’
Each aircraft must be ‘‘historically
significant’’ according to the following
criteria:
1. U.S. operated: The aircraft must
meet a documented set of U.S. military
standards for its airworthiness and
operations in U.S. military service.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Jul 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
2. Not in service: Aircraft currently
operated by the U.S. military or in
civilian service will not be considered.
This exclusion includes variants of
those aircraft.
3. Fragile: The aircraft must be
‘‘fragile.’’ Accepted practices in the
collection of aircraft include ‘‘fragility’’
as a factor that necessitates preservation.
If there are hundreds of models of a
particular aircraft still flying, that
aircraft’s existence would not be
considered ‘‘fragile.’’ If, on the other
hand, there are few remaining aircraft
and the model could become ‘‘extinct’’
without preservation efforts, that aircraft
would be considered ‘‘fragile.’’ Each
aircraft request will be reviewed for
‘‘fragility’’ on a case-by-case basis.
4. Age: The original type design must
be at least 50 years old. This
requirement is consistent with the
policy used by the National Register of
Historical Places to determine historical
significance (Reference: National
Register Bulletin: Guidelines for
Evaluating and Documenting Historic
Aviation Properties. US Department of
Interior, 1998, p. 34–35).
5. No Available Standard Category
Aircraft: Aircraft for which a standard
category civilian model is available will
not be considered. (e.g., the T–28A
achieved certification as a standard
aircraft, while the other versions, T–
28B/C, etc. were strictly military
variants and not eligible for certification
in the standard category).
Replicas will not be considered. This
element relates to the ‘‘integrity’’ of the
structure or object as defined by the
National Register of Historical Places, as
described in the GAO report on Aircraft
Preservation (Reference: Aircraft
Preservation: Preserving DOD Aircraft
Significant to Aviation History, GAO/
NSIAD–8–170BR, May 1988, Appendix
III, p. 13).
of whether hazards and risks have been
identified and responded to through
appropriate mitigating strategies. As
such, each petitioner should be guided
by the following criteria:
• An understanding and use of Safety
Risk Management (SRM) principles.
• A plan to mitigate risks as they
become known, or to correct an unsafe
condition or practice. This includes, but
is not limited to, risks in design,
manufacturing, maintenance and
operations.
• A detailed explanation of all
supporting and historical safety-related
data, such as: Maintenance history,
airworthiness status, conformity to the
Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS—for
Limited category airworthiness
certificates), operational failure modes,
aging aircraft factors, and civilian and
military accident rates. For example, the
FAA will consider:
Æ Operator history, including
accidents and incidents, regulatory
compliance and FAA surveillance
history.
Æ Maintenance records, including
modifications.
Æ Training records.
Æ The aircraft’s operational history,
including the operator’s proposed
mitigation of known risks.
Æ Operating limitations to enhance
safety, clarify, and remediate differences
in like aircraft.
Æ The FAA will assess and, if
necessary, require changes to passenger
safety in terms of configuration, seats,
crashworthiness, and emergency egress,
etc.
• The operator should be able to
demonstrate to the FAA, upon request,
the passenger’s ability to egress each
aircraft in the event of an emergency in
which the crewmember(s) is unable to
assist.
B. Designation of a Responsible Person
and Operational Control Structure
The FAA will review each petition to
identify a responsible party, and an
operational control structure or chain of
command within the manual system for
pilots, maintenance, and support
personnel. Consequently, each petition
should designate a responsible person
whom the FAA can contact for both
operations and maintenance functions.
LHFE operators should be able to
demonstrate the existence of a manual
system similar in terms of intent and
scope of those in 14 CFR part 135. The
FAA will evaluate the operator’s
manuals, including:
• Operations Manual (General
Operations Manual-GOM).
• Pilot Training Manual and
Qualifications.
• Maintenance and Line Support
Training Manuals.
• Maintenance Manual (AIP)
including, but not limited to:
Æ Review of previously approved
AIPs as provided by 14 CFR 91.415
Æ Maintenance training elements.
Æ Replacement plan for time-limited
parts or development of an on-condition
inspection program for such parts.
C. Safety & Risk Analysis
The FAA will use Safety Risk
Management (SRM) and Equal Level of
Safety (ELoS) principles to guide its
safety review in connection with any
future LHFE exemption petition or
request. This safety review will include,
but will not be limited to, an analysis
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
D. Manual System
E:\FR\FM\21JYR1.SGM
21JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 139 / Tuesday, July 21, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
Æ Aging aircraft inspection program.
Æ Corrosion inspection program.
Æ Continued Operational Safety
(COS).
• SMS Manual.
E. Other Considerations
LHFE operations, as it applies to the
passenger(s) experience, is limited to
the sole purpose of being onboard the
aircraft during flight. The FAA will not
consider expanded operations such as
flight training, aerobatics, and passenger
manipulation of the flight controls.
The FAA will always consider
whether a request benefits the public as
a whole and how the request would
provide a level of safety at least equal
to that provided by the rule in
accordance with 14 CFR 11.81.
Moreover, the FAA may impose
additional conditions and limitations or
deny petitions regardless of this policy
statement to adequately mitigate safety
concerns and risk factors as they
become known.
Filing a Petition for Exemption or To
Request an Amendment or Extension to
an Existing Exemption
To submit a petition for exemption or
to request an amendment or extension
to an existing exemption, all petitioners
must follow the procedures set forth in
part 11 of title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations.
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 10,
2015.
John S. Duncan,
Director, Flight Standards Service.
vessels are prohibited from entering
into, transiting through, or anchoring
within this safety zone unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port or
his designated representative.
DATES: This rule is effective from 8:30
p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on July 23, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in
this preamble are part of docket [USCG–
2015–0647]. To view documents
mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://
www.regulations.gov, type the docket
number in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click
‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket
Folder on the line associated with this
rulemaking. You may also visit the
Docket Management Facility in Room
W12–140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this rule, call or
email Petty Officer Nick Bateman,
Waterways Management, U.S. Coast
Guard Sector San Diego; telephone (619)
278–7656, email D11-PFMarineEventsSanDiego@uscg.mil. If you
have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call Cheryl
Collins, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone (202) 366–9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Acronyms
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
TFR Temporary Final Rule
[FR Doc. 2015–17966 Filed 7–20–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
A. Regulatory History and Information
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 165
[Docket Number USCG–2015–0647]
RIN 1625–AA00
Safety Zone; Maritime Museum Party,
San Diego Bay; San Diego, CA
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
AGENCY:
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
ACTION:
The Coast Guard is
establishing a temporary safety zone on
the navigable waters of the San Diego
Bay for a fireworks display on the
evening of July 23, 2015. This action is
necessary to provide for the safety of the
participants, crew, spectators,
participating vessels, and other vessels
and users of the waterway. Persons and
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:53 Jul 20, 2015
Jkt 235001
The Coast Guard is issuing this
temporary final rule safety zone for a
planned fireworks show on San Diego
Bay without prior notice and
opportunity to comment pursuant to
authority under section 4(a) of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5
U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision
authorizes an agency to issue a rule
without prior notice and opportunity to
comment when the agency for good
cause finds that those procedures are
‘‘impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary
to the public interest.’’
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for
not publishing a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this
rule because publishing an NPRM
would be impracticable because
immediate action is needed to minimize
potential danger to the participants and
the public during the event.
Furthermore, the necessary information
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
43015
to determine whether the marine event
poses a threat to persons and vessels
was provided 15 days before the event,
which is insufficient time to publish an
NPRM. Because fireworks barges on the
navigable waterways poses significant
risk to public safety and property and
the likely combination of large numbers
of recreation vessels and congested
waterways could easily result in serious
injuries or fatalities, this safety zone is
necessary to safeguard spectators,
vessels and the event participants. For
the safety concerns noted, it is
important to have these regulations in
effect during the event and
impracticable to delay the regulations.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for
making this rule effective less than 30
days after publication in the Federal
Register. For these same reasons, the
Coast Guard finds good cause for
implementing this rule less than thirty
days before the effective July 23, 2015.
B. Basis and Purpose
The legal basis and authorities for this
temporary rule are found in 33 U.S.C.
1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05–1,
6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; and
Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1, which
collectively authorize the Coast Guard
to propose, establish, and define
regulatory safety zones.
The Coast Guard believes establishing
a temporary safety zone on the
navigable waters of the San Diego Bay
is necessary to ensure public safety for
the fireworks display. A temporary
safety zone will provide for the safety of
the event participants, spectators, safety
vessels, and other public users of the
waterway. This event involves a
planned fifteen minute fireworks
display on a portion of San Diego Bay.
C. Discussion of the Final Rule
The Coast Guard is establishing a
temporary safety zone that will be
enforced from 8:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on
July 23, 2015. This safety zone is
necessary to provide for the safety of the
event participants, event spectators,
safety patrol craft and to protect other
vessels and users of the waterway.
Persons and vessels will be prohibited
from entering into, transiting through, or
anchoring within this safety zone unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port, or
their designated representative. Before
the effective period, the Coast Guard
will publish a local notice to mariners
(LNM). Just prior to the event and
during the enforcement of the event, the
Coast Guard will issue a broadcast
notice to mariners (BNM) alert via VHF
Channel 16.
E:\FR\FM\21JYR1.SGM
21JYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 139 (Tuesday, July 21, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43012-43015]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17966]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Parts 91 and 119
[Docket No. FAA-FAA-2015-0517]
Policy Regarding Living History Flight Experience Exemptions for
Passenger Carrying Operations Conducted for Compensation and Hire in
Other Than Standard Category Aircraft
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of policy statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: With this document, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
cancels all previous agency policies pertaining to the carriage of
passengers for compensation on Living History Flight Experience (LHFE)
flights. This policy statement announces the end of FAA moratorium on
new petitions for exemption, or amendments to exemptions from certain
sections of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) for the
purpose of carrying passengers for compensation or hire on LHFE
Flights.
DATES: The moratorium will end on July 21, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: General Aviation and Commercial
Division, General Aviation Operations Branch (AFS-830), Flight
Standards Service, FAA, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC
20591; telephone (202) 267-1100; 9-AFS-800-Correspondence-Mail@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The FAA has historically found the preservation of U.S. aviation
history to be in the public interest, including preservation of certain
former military
[[Page 43013]]
aircraft transferred to private individuals or organizations for the
purpose of restoring and operating these aircraft. In 1996, the FAA
received exemption requests from not-for-profit organizations to permit
the carriage of persons for compensation in both Limited and
Experimental category, former-military, historically-significant
aircraft. These requests offered to provide a short in-flight
experience to these aircraft in exchange for compensation, leading to
the term Nostalgia Flights, then later Living History Flight Experience
(LHFE), and provided a means for private civilian owners to offset the
considerable restoration, maintenance and operational costs. The FAA
determined that, in certain cases, operators could conduct LHFE flights
at an acceptable level of safety and in the public interest, in
accordance with appropriate conditions and limitations.
These original requests involved large, crew-served, piston-
powered, multi-engine World War II (WWII) vintage aircraft. In order to
maintain safe operations of these aircraft, the FAA required flight
crewmembers to meet certain qualifications and training requirements
that included FAA-approved training, maintaining training records, and
reporting procedures. As the public availability of purchase for former
military aircraft increased, along with an increase in public interest
for maintaining and operating these aircraft, so grew the requests for
LHFE relief.
In 2004, to address a range of new aircraft requests and clarify
the FAA's position, the FAA published a notice of policy statement
(FAA-2004-17648). The policy limited LHFE relief to slower, piston-
powered, multi-engine airplanes of WWII or earlier vintage, citing the
unique opportunity to experience flight in aircraft such as the B-17
Flying Fortress and B-24 Liberator which could still be operated
safely, considering limited parts and specialty-fuel supplies. In
addition, qualifying aircraft would have no similar standard
airworthiness counterpart that could allow a similar experience without
the need for regulatory relief. The FAA also determined supersonic jets
would not be considered because their operational speeds made it likely
that any in-flight emergency may result in serious injuries or
fatalities. The policy detailed that, in permitting the carriage of
passengers, flight crewmembers were required to meet more stringent
pilot qualifications as well as training requirements that included an
FAA-approved training program, maintenance of training records, and
reporting procedures.
In the years that followed, the FAA received petitions to operate a
broad range of aircraft, including large turbojet-powered aircraft,
foreign-manufactured aircraft and aircraft models that remained in
military service, or were readily available in the open market. The
petitions raised significant concerns within the FAA, and led to a
reexamination and refinement of the criteria for issuing exemptions
pertaining to LHFE flights.
In 2007, after requesting and receiving public comment on the
matter, the FAA published an updated policy statement (72 FR 57196)
that provided consideration for any aircraft on a case-by-case basis,
so long as the petitioner demonstrates that (1) there is an overriding
public interest in providing a financial means for a non-profit
organization to continue to preserve and operate these historic
aircraft, and (2) adequate measures, including all conditions and
limitations stipulated in the exemption, will be taken to ensure
safety. Additionally, the FAA refined and expanded its previous list of
criteria, requiring numerous aircraft-operation components, including
crew qualification and training, aircraft maintenance and inspection,
passenger safety and training, safety of the non-participating public,
as well as manufacturing criteria, and a petitioner's non-profit
status. The FAA also included consideration for the number of existing
operational aircraft and petitioners available to provide the historic
service to the public.
The evolution of LHFE operations in the private sector, along with
the availability of newer and more capable former military aircraft,
raised new public safety and public policy concerns. The FAA
accommodated several requests to operate more modern military jet
aircraft. Conditions and limitations for operations grew in number, and
were, in some cases, misinterpreted as permitting operations that the
FAA did not contemplate or intend. Examples included cases of
passengers manipulating the aircraft flight controls to proposals of
LHFE flights performing aerobatic maneuvers, simulating aerial combat
in the interest of ``historical experience.''
Consequently, in 2011, the FAA published a new policy statement
announcing a moratorium on LHFE exemptions for new operators and the
addition of aircraft to existing LHFE exemptions. The moratorium
permitted existing exemption holders to continue operations, and to
renew their exemptions, but stated that the FAA would add clarifying
limitations to all LHFE petitions renewed or extended during that time.
In June of 2012, the FAA held public meetings to gather additional
technical input. Discussion addressed 35 questions posed by the FAA and
included as part of the meeting notice. In addition to statements
provided by the public meeting attendees, over 500 comments were
received in the docket (Docket No. FAA-2012-0374) established for
public input. The meeting was focused to address industry comments
related to the LHFE policy notices of 2004 and 2007 and areas of
concern based on safety recommendations, FAA internal discussions, and
post 2007 developments. Small work groups were formed to discuss
general policy, exemption issuance, limitations, weather minimums,
pilot qualification and currency, and maintenance and inspection. The
area of interest that generated the most discussion was regarding
limitations placed on LHFE operations--specifically, passengers
occupying crew seats or positions, aerobatics, and requirements for
arresting gear for high performance jets. The largest general policy
topic discussed was regarding whether the FAA planned on excluding
turbojets or supersonic aircraft in the policy. The work groups also
explored criteria for determining historical significance, replicas,
operational control and responsible persons, manuals, compliance
history, and training requirements.
The majority of the 519 written comments were either in favor of
keeping the existing exemption policy or expanding on its provisions.
Fifty-nine (11%) comment submissions desired no changes to the current
LHFE policy. Eight commenters provided detailed comments to each of the
questions posed within the FAA's areas of interest. In regards to
training, safety and operational control, a commenter stated his belief
that the employees/pilots/crew of the aircraft for hire have annual
training and that the aircraft should be on an FAA/manufacturer
approved inspection program, and that this training and adherence to
the required and recommended inspections/maintenance provides a
reasonable level of government protection to the flying and non-flying
public. Eight commenters suggested a more restrictive LHFE Exemption
policy, and one commenter supported the use of drug testing for LHFE
flight crews. One commenter suggested that good guidance already exists
in the A008 Operations Specification of Part 135 certificate holders,
and that much of
[[Page 43014]]
that guidance can be reasonably applied to LHFE. The FAA concurs and
finds good reason to include certain elements found in part 135;
specifically those related to operational control and document
structure. 516 (99%) written comments expressed support for LHFE
exemptions, while three (1%) were opposed.
The FAA also held meetings with curators at the Smithsonian
National Air and Space Museum and reviewed the United States General
Accounting Office (GAO) report on Preserving DOD Aircraft Significant
to Aviation History to understand how other organizations determine
``historical significance'' as part of determining criteria to satisfy
``public interest''.
Also during the moratorium, two accidents involving LHFE operators
occurred which led the FAA to further research and develop safety
mitigations to operational and maintenance issues highlighted by the
investigations. The need to develop a safety and risk management system
as part of the new policy was evident, and supported by comments
received. One such comment stated, in part that it is important to try
and mitigate some of the risks and to inform the public about the risks
of the activity.
Therefore, based on FAA research, comments and transcripts of the
public meeting, as well as an evaluation of public safety risks, the
FAA finds good reason to publish a new policy. While the FAA is lifting
the 2011 moratorium with this policy, we are also setting forth
specific criteria that the FAA will use in considering any LHFE
petition for exemption, or petition to extend or amend an existing
exemption.
FAA Policy
The FAA announces the end of the FAA-imposed moratorium on new
petitions for exemption, or amendments to existing exemptions, from
certain sections of 14 CFR for the purpose of carrying passengers for
compensation or hire on LHFE flights. The FAA is also cancelling all
previously issued LHFE policy statements. The FAA will now consider new
petitions for exemption, or requests for extensions or amendments to
current exemptions in accordance with the following criteria.
A. Aircraft Must Be ``Historically Significant''
Each aircraft must be ``historically significant'' according to the
following criteria:
1. U.S. operated: The aircraft must meet a documented set of U.S.
military standards for its airworthiness and operations in U.S.
military service.
2. Not in service: Aircraft currently operated by the U.S. military
or in civilian service will not be considered. This exclusion includes
variants of those aircraft.
3. Fragile: The aircraft must be ``fragile.'' Accepted practices in
the collection of aircraft include ``fragility'' as a factor that
necessitates preservation. If there are hundreds of models of a
particular aircraft still flying, that aircraft's existence would not
be considered ``fragile.'' If, on the other hand, there are few
remaining aircraft and the model could become ``extinct'' without
preservation efforts, that aircraft would be considered ``fragile.''
Each aircraft request will be reviewed for ``fragility'' on a case-by-
case basis.
4. Age: The original type design must be at least 50 years old.
This requirement is consistent with the policy used by the National
Register of Historical Places to determine historical significance
(Reference: National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and
Documenting Historic Aviation Properties. US Department of Interior,
1998, p. 34-35).
5. No Available Standard Category Aircraft: Aircraft for which a
standard category civilian model is available will not be considered.
(e.g., the T-28A achieved certification as a standard aircraft, while
the other versions, T-28B/C, etc. were strictly military variants and
not eligible for certification in the standard category).
Replicas will not be considered. This element relates to the
``integrity'' of the structure or object as defined by the National
Register of Historical Places, as described in the GAO report on
Aircraft Preservation (Reference: Aircraft Preservation: Preserving DOD
Aircraft Significant to Aviation History, GAO/NSIAD-8-170BR, May 1988,
Appendix III, p. 13).
B. Designation of a Responsible Person and Operational Control
Structure
The FAA will review each petition to identify a responsible party,
and an operational control structure or chain of command within the
manual system for pilots, maintenance, and support personnel.
Consequently, each petition should designate a responsible person whom
the FAA can contact for both operations and maintenance functions.
C. Safety & Risk Analysis
The FAA will use Safety Risk Management (SRM) and Equal Level of
Safety (ELoS) principles to guide its safety review in connection with
any future LHFE exemption petition or request. This safety review will
include, but will not be limited to, an analysis of whether hazards and
risks have been identified and responded to through appropriate
mitigating strategies. As such, each petitioner should be guided by the
following criteria:
An understanding and use of Safety Risk Management (SRM)
principles.
A plan to mitigate risks as they become known, or to
correct an unsafe condition or practice. This includes, but is not
limited to, risks in design, manufacturing, maintenance and operations.
A detailed explanation of all supporting and historical
safety-related data, such as: Maintenance history, airworthiness
status, conformity to the Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS--for
Limited category airworthiness certificates), operational failure
modes, aging aircraft factors, and civilian and military accident
rates. For example, the FAA will consider:
[cir] Operator history, including accidents and incidents,
regulatory compliance and FAA surveillance history.
[cir] Maintenance records, including modifications.
[cir] Training records.
[cir] The aircraft's operational history, including the operator's
proposed mitigation of known risks.
[cir] Operating limitations to enhance safety, clarify, and
remediate differences in like aircraft.
[cir] The FAA will assess and, if necessary, require changes to
passenger safety in terms of configuration, seats, crashworthiness, and
emergency egress, etc.
The operator should be able to demonstrate to the FAA,
upon request, the passenger's ability to egress each aircraft in the
event of an emergency in which the crewmember(s) is unable to assist.
D. Manual System
LHFE operators should be able to demonstrate the existence of a
manual system similar in terms of intent and scope of those in 14 CFR
part 135. The FAA will evaluate the operator's manuals, including:
Operations Manual (General Operations Manual-GOM).
Pilot Training Manual and Qualifications.
Maintenance and Line Support Training Manuals.
Maintenance Manual (AIP) including, but not limited to:
[cir] Review of previously approved AIPs as provided by 14 CFR
91.415
[cir] Maintenance training elements.
[cir] Replacement plan for time-limited parts or development of an
on-condition inspection program for such parts.
[[Page 43015]]
[cir] Aging aircraft inspection program.
[cir] Corrosion inspection program.
[cir] Continued Operational Safety (COS).
SMS Manual.
E. Other Considerations
LHFE operations, as it applies to the passenger(s) experience, is
limited to the sole purpose of being onboard the aircraft during
flight. The FAA will not consider expanded operations such as flight
training, aerobatics, and passenger manipulation of the flight
controls.
The FAA will always consider whether a request benefits the public
as a whole and how the request would provide a level of safety at least
equal to that provided by the rule in accordance with 14 CFR 11.81.
Moreover, the FAA may impose additional conditions and limitations or
deny petitions regardless of this policy statement to adequately
mitigate safety concerns and risk factors as they become known.
Filing a Petition for Exemption or To Request an Amendment or Extension
to an Existing Exemption
To submit a petition for exemption or to request an amendment or
extension to an existing exemption, all petitioners must follow the
procedures set forth in part 11 of title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations.
Issued in Washington, DC, on July 10, 2015.
John S. Duncan,
Director, Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-17966 Filed 7-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
