Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2001 / Notices 2949

District Office in Las Vegas and actually

fly the proposed routes, a full, fair,

complete and objective evaluation

simply is not possible by the January 12,

2001 deadline.’’

The FAA is very interested in

receiving the air tour operators’

comments to the Notice of Availability

and welcomes the operators’ interest in

aviation safety. Thus, the FAA is

extending the comment period to the

Notice of Availability until January 26,

2001. The FAA believes that this

extension accounts for the time lost due

to the holidays and provides the air tour

operators with two additional weeks to

complete any route reviews and prepare

written comments. Given that the

suggested route modifications were not

extensive (and in fact the modification

to the Dragon Corridor reverts the

turnaround back to its present location),

the FAA believes the additional 15–45

days requested by the air tour operators

is unnecessary.

Issued in Washington, DC on January 8,

2001.

Gregory L. Michael,

Acting Director, Flight Standards Service.

[FR Doc. 01–1066 Filed 1–9–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

RTCA Special Committee 186;

Automatic Dependent Surveillance—

Broadcast (ADS–B)

Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the

Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub.

L. 92–463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice

is hereby given for Special Committee

(SC)–186 meeting to be held February

5–8, 2001, starting at 9 a.m. The meeting

will be held at the Sheraton Four Points

Barcelo Hotel, 10220 North Metro

Parkway East, Phoenix, AZ 85051.

The agenda will include: February 5:

Working Group (WG)–4, Airborne

Separation Assurance (ASA) Minimum

Aviation System Performance Standards

(MASPS); February 6, 7: WG–1,

Operations and Implementation; WG–4,

ASA MASPS; February 8: Plenary

Session: (1) Welcome and Introductory

Remarks; (2) Review of Meeting Agenda;

(3) Review and Approval of the Previous

Meeting Minutes, RTCA Paper No. 394–

00/SC186–175; (4) Briefing—FAA ADS–

B ‘‘Big Picture’’ Roadmap; (5) Briefing—

ASDE–X Program; (6) Briefing—OCG–3

Memphis Op Eval–PM Status and Plans;

(7) Briefing—DOD Requirements

Process; (8) Eurocae WG–51 Status

Report; (9) SC–186 Activity Reports for

the following Working Groups: (a) WG–

1, Operations & Implementation; (b)

WG–2, Traffic Information Services—

Broadcast (TIS–B); (c) WG–3, 1090 MHz

Minimum Operational Performance

Standards (MOPS); (d) WG–4,

Application Technical Requirements; (e)

WG–5, Universal Access Transceiver

(UAT) MOPS; (f) Ad Hoc MASPS

Working Group (DO–242); (10) Review

Action Items/Work Program; (11) Other

Business; (12) Date and Location of Next

Meeting; (13) Closing.

Attendance is open to the interested

public but limited to space availability.

With the approval of the chairman,

members of the public may present oral

statements at the meeting. Persons

wishing to present statements or obtain

information should contact the RTCA

Secretariat, 1140 Connecticut Avenue,

NW., Suite 1020, Washington, DC

20036; (202) 833–9339 (phone); (202)

833–9434 (fax); or the on-site contact,

Greg Stayton at (602) 436–1234 (phone),

(602) 436–5500 (fax) or greg.stayton@1–

3com.com (email). Members of the

public may present a written statement

to the committee at any time.

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 3,

2001.

Janice L. Peters,

Designated Official.

[FR Doc. 01–1094 Filed 1–11–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Policy Statement Number ACE–00–

23.1155–01]

Issuance of Policy Memorandum, InFlight Operation of Propellers at Pitch

Settings Below the Flight Regime for

14 CFR Part 23/CAR 3 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of policy statement.

SUMMARY: This document announces an

FAA general statement of policy for

certification of normal, utility, acrobatic,

and commuter category turbine powered

airplanes with propeller beta mode

pitch settings.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Randy Griffith, Federal Aviation

Administration, Small Airplane

Directorate, Regulations and Policy

Branch, ACE–111, 901 Locust, Room

301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106;

telephone (816) 329–4126; fax (816)

329–4090; email:

<randy.griffith@faa.gov>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

This notice announces the following

policy statement, ACE–00–23.1155–01.

The purpose of this statement is to

address certification of normal, utility,

acrobatic, and commuter category

turbine powered airplanes with

propeller beta mode pitch settings.

What Is the General Effect of This

Policy?

The FAA is presenting this

information as a set of guidelines

suitable for use. However, we do not

intend that this policy set up a binding

norm; it does not form a new regulation

and the FAA would not apply or rely on

it as a regulation.

The FAA Aircraft Certification Offices

(ACO’s) and Flight Standards District

Offices (FSDO’s) that certify changes in

type design and approve alterations in

normal, utility, and acrobatic category

airplanes should try to follow this

policy when appropriate. Applicants

should expect the certificating officials

would consider this information when

making findings of compliance.

As with all advisory material, this

statement of policy identifies one way,

but not the only way, of compliance.

General Discussion of Comments

Has FAA Taken Any Action to This

Point?

We issued a notice of policy

statement, request for comments. This

proposed policy appeared in the

Federal Register on September 1, 2000

(65 FR 53340) and the public comment

period closed October 2, 2000.

Was the Public Invited To Comment?

The FAA encouraged interested

people to join in making this proposed

policy. We received comments from 5

different commenters. Commenters

included manufacturers and aviation

regulatory authorities.

Two commenters did not provide

recommendations specific to the policy.

The first agreed with the content. The

second provided information and safety

concerns on the possible rulemaking

discussed in the background to the

policy. We have noted the second’s

comment, which will be considered if

we determine that rulemaking should be

pursued.

Two commenters recommended that

FAA consider for part 23 the material

that was recently prepared for 14 CFR

part 25 under the Powerplant

Installation Harmonization Working

Group (PPIHWG), as the same risks and

considerations apply. We disagree that

the same risks and considerations for

part 25 airplanes directly relate to part

2950 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2001 / Notices

23 airplanes. The tasking that PPIHWG

is working for part 25 airplanes only

considered transport category airplane

design and operation. The design and

operation of part 23 airplanes is

different from part 25 airplanes.

Therefore, direct adoption of part 25

requirements into part 23 without fully

evaluating these operational and design

differences could result in lowering the

overall safety of part 23 airplanes.

A commenter stated that the proposed

policy does not appear to contain new

policy material. We disagree. The

proposed policy provides new criteria,

which has not been applied to all part

23/CAR 3 airplanes.

A commenter wrote that they oppose

this policy as it proposes to require new

designs to prevent intentional

prohibited operations. We disagree. This

policy is not requiring new designs to

prevent intentional prohibited

operations, rather the policy is

providing certification considerations

for part 23/CAR 3 airplanes that have inflight beta capability.

A commenter stated that the policy is

for regulations that have not been issued

or approved. We disagree. The rules

applicable to this policy are § 23.1155,

which was adopted by Amendment 23–

7 effective September 14, 1969, and 14

CFR part 21, §§ 21.21(b)(2) and

21.101(b), which were both effective

with the basic part 21 dated February 1,

1965. Therefore, the rules in question

are more than 30 years old.

A commenter stated that it is unclear

if the section ‘‘Inadvertent In-Flight

Operation’’ is directed towards existing

type certificated airplanes or future type

certificated airplanes. Further, the

commenter states that the policy can be

easily misconstrued as to require a

manufacturer to retrofit airplanes to

prohibit in-flight beta operations. We

disagree in that the section specifically

states ‘‘For airplanes with a certification

basis before Amendment 23–7 that are

modified to add in-flight beta capability

* * *’’ Therefore, the section obviously

applies to existing type certificated

airplanes that are modified.

A commenter said the requirement for

the flight manual to contain appropriate

operational limitations and consequence

statements for in-flight beta operation

could not be mandated by policy. We

agree, but the policy does not mandate

such actions. Rather the policy provides

certification guidance, which is

reflected when the policy is finalized.

A commenter stated that the beta

lock-out systems discussion is unclear;

specifically, is it directed towards future

type certificated airplanes, existing type

certificated airplanes undergoing

modification, or existing type

certificated airplanes not undergoing

modification? Also, the commenter

requested clarification of which version

of § 23.1155 this section applies; before

Amendment 23–7, at Amendment 23–7,

or the proposed § 23.1155. Further, the

commenter states that if the section

applies to the proposed § 23.1155, this

policy can not enforce a rule that has

not been issued. We agree with the

commenter’s first comment. Therefore,

the beginning of the second paragraph

of this section was modified to add

qualifiers on which airplanes this

section applies. We disagree with the

commenter’s remaining comments in

that there is only one version of

§ 23.1155, the version at Amendment

23–7, which was the amendment level

that adopted the rule. Further, the

commenter is incorrect in that this

policy is not proposing a rule change.

A commenter requested clarification

on who does a system safety analysis.

We agree and this section was modified

by indicating that the applicant

performs the analysis.

The Policy

Background

The National Transportation Safety

Board (NTSB) has recommended

rulemaking action to amend 14 CFR part

23 to require a means to prevent inflight operation of the propeller at pitch

settings below the flight regime (beta

mode). For turbine engine installations,

§ 23.1155, added by Amendment 23–7,

requires that operation of the propeller

controls for pitch settings below the

flight regime have a means to prevent

inadvertent operation. The new

requirement recommended by the NTSB

would be fundamentally different from

the current § 23.1155. Unless the

airplane is certificated for such use, beta

mode could not occur in-flight, even if

intentionally commanded. The Small

Airplane Directorate is initiating an

ARAC, Aviation Rulemaking Advisory

Committee, study to determine whether

a rulemaking effort should occur.

The FAA has taken actions to address

previously certificated airplanes with

in-flight beta capability. A fleet wide

review of all turbopropeller powered

transport, normal, utility, acrobatic, and

commuter category airplanes was

performed. As a result of the review, the

FAA issued Airworthiness Directives

that required applicable Flight Manuals

to include an operational limitation

with consequence statement for in-flight

beta operation.

Also, the safety of future type

certificated airplanes, with in-flight beta

capability, or currently certificated

airplanes, which are being modified to

add an in-flight beta capability, should

be assessed. This assessment should

consider both unintentional and

intentional operation of propellers in

pitch settings below the flight regime.

Inadvertent In-Flight Operation

Regarding inadvertent operation, as

previously mentioned, Amendment 23–

7 added a requirement (§ 23.1155) that

operations of the propeller controls at

pitch settings below the flight regime

have a means to prevent inadvertent

operation. For airplanes with a

certification basis before Amendment

23–7 that are modified to add in-flight

beta capability, the provisions of

§ 21.101(b) should be used to evaluate

the possible unsafe nature of

inadvertent operation of propellers in

the beta regime. If it is determined that

such operation is unsafe, the issue may

be addressed by showing compliance

with § 23.1155.

The nature of the regulatory

requirement provided by § 23.1155

allows a subjective, qualitative

evaluation for compliance

determination. The intent is to prevent

inadvertent operation in the beta mode,

even if the possibility of inadvertent

operation is remote. If an operation or

feature of the design can allow in-flight,

inadvertent placement of the control

below the flight regime, the design does

not comply with the regulation. In other

words, the design should be evaluated

considering the types of operations that

will be seen in service. Consider items

such as hardware wear modes or

maintenance issues that may cause the

control to be unintentionally placed or

creep into the beta regime over time.

Intentional In-Flight Operation

On all future type certification

projects, the Flight Manuals should

include the appropriate operational

limitations and consequence statement

for in-flight beta operation.

Beta Lock-Out Systems

To add an assurance that in-flight beta

will not occur, some airplanes have

incorporated lock-out systems. These

systems remove the ability to do this

operation in-flight, even if intentionally

commanded. It is important to note that

the installation of a beta lock-out system

cannot be used instead of the design

requirements of § 23.1155 compliance.

Also, in some cases, propeller beta

operation is used to show compliance

with stopping distances in part 23,

Subpart B. Under Subpart B, when

means other than wheel brakes are used

for determining stopping distances, the

means must be ‘‘safe and reliable.’’ If

beta operation is used to show

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2001 / Notices 2951

compliance with stopping distances, the

reliability of a system that would

prevent in-flight beta operation must be

such that this capability, when required,

will be available to comply with

Subpart B, and § 21.21(b)(2) or

§ 21.101(b). With a system safety

analysis, the applicant can determine

the required reliability level for the beta

lock-out system based on the hazard

level (for example, § 23.1309

compliance). Therefore, for new type certificated

airplanes that have a beta lock-out

system incorporated or previously

certificated airplanes that add a beta

lock-out system, the applicant should

perform a system safety analysis of the

installation of this system. This analysis

should consider hazards such as the

inability to command beta on one

engine on a multiengine airplane. For

example, if beta is commanded on both

engines during land roll-out, but only

one propeller goes into beta mode, this

might adversely affect ground

controllability.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on

December 22, 2000.

Marvin R. Nuss,

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–1088 Filed 1–11–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

Environmental Impact Statement:

Riverside County, CA

AGENCY: Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an

environmental impact statement.

SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this

notice to advise the public that an

Environmental Impact Statement will be

prepared for a proposed highway project

in Riverside County, California.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Rick Cushing, Environmental Planning

Engineer, Federal Highway

Administration, 555 Zang Street, Rm

259, Lakewood, Colorado 80228,

telephone 303–716–2138.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

FHWA, in cooperation with San

Bernardino National Forest, the

California Department of

Transportation, and Riverside County,

will prepare an Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) on a proposal to

improve California Forest Highway (FH)

224, Bautista Canyon Road. The portion

that is proposed for improvement begins

10.3 miles southeast of Valle Vista and

extends 8.2 miles to a point 3.2 miles

northwest of State Highway 371 west of

Anza. The FHWA is the lead agency.

Riverside County will assist the FHWA

in the preparation of the EIS.

Improvements are being considered to

provide a safe, all-weather facility for

existing and projected traffic demand.

Alternatives under consideration

include (1) taking no action, (2) the

improvement of the existing facility to

appropriate County, American

Association of State Highway and

Transportation Officials (AASHTO), or

other acceptable design criteria, and (3)

other alternatives that may be developed

during the environmental process. Letters describing the proposed action

and soliciting comments will be sent to

appropriate Federal, State, and local

agencies, and to private organizations

and citizens. Public scoping meetings

will be held on January 30, 2001 at 7

p.m. in Anza and on January 31, 2001

at 7 p.m. to Valle Vista. A public

hearing will also be held in the project

area. The draft EIS will be available for

public and agency review and comment

prior to the public hearing. Information

on the time and place of public

meetings and hearings will be provided

in the local news media and by letter to

individuals and agencies that have

expressed interest in the proposal. To ensure that the full range of issues

and alternatives related to the proposed

action are addressed and all significant

issues identified, comments and

suggestions are invited from all

interested parties. Comments and

questions concerning the proposed

action should be directed to the FHWA

at the address provided above.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program Number 20.205, Highway Research,

Planning and Construction. The regulations

implementing Executive Order 12372

regarding intergovernmental consultation on

Federal programs and activities apply to this

program)

Issued on: January 4, 2001.

Larry C. Smith,

Division Engineer, FHWA Denver, Colorado.

[FR Doc. 01–1006 Filed 1–11–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No.’s FRA–2000–6923 and FRA–

2000–6924]

Notice of Public Hearing; CSX

Transportation, Incorporated

CSX Transportation, Incorporated has

petitioned the Federal Railroad

Administration (FRA) seeking approval

of the proposed discontinuance and

removal of the manual block systems

(DCS Operating Rules), on the single

secondary track, between Weir, milepost

13.3 and Dock, milepost 28.2, near New

Bedford, Massachusetts, New Bedford

Subdivision, and on the single

secondary track, between Swamp,

milepost 0.0 and Wharf, milepost 12.0,

near Fall River, Massachusetts, Fall

River Subdivision, Albany Service Lane,

and re-designation of the secondary

tracks to industrial tracks.

These proceedings are identified as

FRA block signal applications, Docket

numbers FRA–2000–6923 and FRA–

2000–6924 respectively.

FRA has issued a public notice

seeking comments of interested parties

and has conducted a field investigation

in this matter. After examining the

carrier’s proposal and the available

facts, FRA has determined that a public

hearing is necessary before a final

decision is made on this proposal.

Accordingly, a public hearing is

hereby set for 9 a.m. on Tuesday,

February 6, 2001, in the John A. Volpe

National Transportation Systems Center,

Room 1228, located at 55 Broadway,

Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142.

Interested parties are invited to present

oral statements at the hearing.

The hearing will be an informal one

and will be conducted in accordance

with Rule 25 of the FRA Rules of

Practice (49 CFR 211.25), by a

representative designated by the FRA.

The hearing will be a non-adversary

proceeding and, therefore, there will be

no cross-examination of persons

presenting statements. The FRA

representative will make an opening

statement outlining the scope of the

hearing. After all initial statements have

been completed, those persons wishing

to make brief rebuttal statements will be

given the opportunity to do so in the

same order in which they made their

initial statements. Additional

procedures, if necessary for the conduct

of the hearing, will be announced at the

hearing.

Issued in Washington, DC on January 5,

2001.

Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,

Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety

Standards and Program Development.

[FR Doc. 01–1097 Filed 1–11–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P