9622 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 27 / Thursday, February 8, 2001 / Notices

The FAA concurs with the

commenter’s request. We have revised

paragraph 5.a.(2)(c) of the final AC to

state: ‘‘Category C: A temporary (timelimited) repair that will need to be

reworked or replaced prior to an

established time * * *’’

Airplane Cycle Age Equal to or Less

Than Implementation Time on Effective

Date of Rule

One commenter requests that the FAA

clarify the guidance on when the

assessment process would begin for

airplanes whose flight cycle age is equal

to or less than the implementation time

on the date the associated final rule

becomes effective. Specifically, the

commenter points out that the deadline

for repair assessment does not include

a ‘‘not to exceed’’ value like the other

airplanes addressed in the proposed AC.

The FAA concurs that clarification is

necessary. We have changed paragraph

6.g.(1) of the final AC to state that the

assessment of an airplane in this group

should take place before it exceeds the

design service goal (DSG), plus an

equivalent C-check. (This is parallel to

the limit of the assessment deadline

specified in paragraph 6.g.(2) for

airplanes whose cycle age is greater than

the implementation time, but less than

the DSG, on the date that the associated

final rule became effective.)

Maintenance Program Changes

One commenter requests that the FAA

revise the proposed AC to make its

intent clearer concerning maintenance

program changes. The proposed

wording states: ‘‘If the interval

escalation reduces the frequency of

inspection of the affected area below the

BZI * * *’’.

The commenter considers that this

wording is confusing, and suggests that

it could be clearer if changed to: ‘‘If the

revised maintenance or inspection

program intervals are greater than those

in the BZI * * *’’

The FAA concurs. We have changed

the wording in paragraph 6.h. of the

final AC accordingly.

Sale and Transfer of Airplanes

One commenter requests changes

concerning the time for implementing

the required repair assessment for

airplanes that previously have been

operated under an FAA-approved

maintenance program and are now

being sold or transferred. The

commenter requests that the phrase,

‘‘* * * whichever would result in an

earlier accomplishment date for the

assessment,’’ be eliminated. The

commenter states:

• Such a requirement to adopt

previous operators’ programs into the

new operator’s FAA-approved program

adds needless administrative

complexity and confusion.

• The FAA applies specific oversight

of maintenance program integration for

fleet additions, whether by acquisition

of new or used aircraft of by lease.

• Ample FAA guidelines cover the

integration of airplanes transitioning

from one maintenance program to

another, and there is no need to add an

across-the-board provision which may

not be appropriate in may cases.

The FAA does not concur. We

consider it essential that operators

ensure that transferred airplanes are

maintained in accordance with the

repair assessment program on the same

basis as if there were continuity in

ownership. Scheduling of the repair

assessments for each airplane must not

be delayed or postponed because of a

transfer of ownership; in some cases,

such postponement could continue

indefinitely if an airplane is transferred

frequently from one owner to another.

The stipulation contained in the AC is

intended to prevent the situation where

an airplane is transferred so often that

it never gets assessed.

Miscellaneous Changes

Title of AC: We changed the title of

the final AC to ‘‘Damage Tolerance

Assessment of Repairs to Pressurized

Fuselages.’’ We consider that this new

title more clearly reflects the content of

the AC and the guidance provided.

Paragraph 3., Discussion: We revised

this paragraph in the final AC provide

a comprehensive list of all airplane

models that are subject to the

requirements of 14 CFR parts 91, 121,

125, and 129 for a structural integrity

assessment of repairs to the fuselage

pressure boundary.

Paragraph 6.j., Operation of Leased

Foreign-Owned Airplanes: We revised

this paragraph to point out that the

applicant is not required to implement

the assessment program only in

accordance with the ‘‘model-specific

manufacturer’s repair assessment

guidelines.’’ We deleted the word

‘‘manufacturer’s’’ from that phrase in

the final AC. The applicant may use the

manufacturer’s guidelines or may use

any others that have been developed

and approved for the specific airplane

model.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on January

23, 2001.

Dorenda D. Baker,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–3309 Filed 2–7–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915–13–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

RTCA, Inc. Special Committee 198;

Next Generation Communications

(NEXCOM)

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 an RTCA NEXCOM

Special Committee 198 meeting to be

held February 22–23, 2001, starting at

9:00 a.m. The meeting will be held at

the RTCA Inc., 1140 Connecticut Ave,

NW, Suite 1020, Washington, DC,

20536.

At the request of the Federal Aviation

Administration, RTCA established a

new Special Committee (SC–198) to

develop recommendations for the Next

Generation Communications (NEXCOM)

program. The FAA will implement an

integrated system for digital air/ground

voice and data communications in the

National Airspace System. Special

Committee 198 will undertake a

multiphase work program that will

initially focus on operational

considerations and identify, then

characterize, basic operational issues.

this results of the first phase effort will

be published in a Principles of

Operation document as well as a report

on responses to recommendation of the

RTCA Chairman’s Committee on

NEXCOM. In subsequent phases,

Special Committee 198 will address

detailed demonstration and transition

planning.

The agenda will include: (1) Welcome

and Introductory Remarks; (2) Review

Terms of Reference, discuss multi-phase

work program; (3) Organize work

groups, determine leadership, establish

interim milestones to deliver two

products for Phase 1: (a) Report on

Responses to Recommendations to the

RTCA Chairman’s Committee on

NEXCOM (Delivery: August 2001); (b)

RTCA DO NEXCOM Principles

(Delivery: September 2001); (4) Working

Group meetings. Plenary Session: (5)

Review Work Group reports; (6) Review

Proposed schedule for subsequent

meetings to include Plenary meetings in

February, April, June, and August, as

well as Plenary in September 2001 to

approve phase 1 documents; (c) Plenary

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 27 / Thursday, February 8, 2001 / Notices 9623

in November 2001 to review other

committee work; (d) and Editorial

meetings; (7) Other Business; (8) Date

and Location of Next Meting; (9)

Closing.

Attendance is open to the interested

public but limited to space availability.

With the approval of the Co-chairmen,

members of the public may present oral

statements at the meeting. Persons

wishing to present statements or obtain

information should contact the RTCA,

Inc., at (202) 833–9339 (phone), (202)

833–9434 (facsimile).

Issued in Washington, DC on February 1,

2001.

Janice L. Peters,

Designated Official.

[FR Doc. 01–3310 Filed 2–7–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

RTCA Special Committee 172; Future

Air-Ground Communications in the

VHF Aeronautical Data Band (118–137

MHz)

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

172 meeting to be held February 27–

March 1, 2001, starting at 9:00 a.m. The

meeting will be held at RTCA, 1140

Connecticut Avenue, NW., Suite 1020,

Washington, DC 20036.

The agenda will include: February 27:

Plenary Session Convenes; (1)

Introductory Remarks; (2) Review

Meeting Agenda; (3) Review Previous

Meeting Minutes; (4) Working Group

(WG)–2 Convenes to work on Minimum

Aviation System Performance Standards

(MASPS); (5) WG–3 Convenes to work

on VHF Data Link 2 and 3 Minimum

Operational Performance Standards

(MOPS). February 28: (6) Working

Group 3 continues. March 1: Plenary

Sessions Reconvenes: (7) Review ICAO

Aeronautical Mobile Communications

Panel (AMCP) Activities; (8) Report on

Next Generation Communications

(NEXCOM) Advisory Rulemaking

Committee and other FAA digital

activities; (9) Report on Airlines

Electronic Engineering Committee,

Systems Architecture Interfaces work on

NEXCOM; (10) Review Status of

EUROCAE WG–47; (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 http://www.rtca.org

(web site). Members of the public may

present a written statement to the

committee at any time.

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 1,

2001.

Janice L. Peters,

Designated Official.

[FR Doc. 01–3311 Filed 2–7–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Passenger Facility Charge

(PFC) Approvals and Disapprovals

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Monthly Notice of PFC

Approvals and Disapprovals. In

December 2000, there were seven

applications approved. Additionally, 11

approved amendments to previously

approved applications are listed.

SUMMARY: The FAA publishes a monthly

notice, as appropriate, of PFC approvals

and disapprovals under the provisions

of the Aviation Safety and Capacity

Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of

1990) (Pub. L. 101–508) and part 158 of

the Federal Aviation Regulations (14

CFR part 158). This notice is published

pursuant to paragraph d of § 158.29.

PFC Applications Approved

Public Agency: Milwaukee County,

Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Application Number: 00–06–U–00–

MKE.

Application Type: Use PFC revenue.

PFC Level: $3.00.

Total PFC Revenue to be used in this

Decision: $2,158,333.

Charge Effective Date: April 1, 1999.

Estimated Charge Expiration Date:

May 1, 2004.

Class of Air Carriers Not Required to

Collect PFC’s: No charge from previous

decision.

Brief Description of Projects Approved

for Use: Surface movement guidance

control system. School/church sound

insulation, phase II.

Decision Date: December 5, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sandra E. DePottey, Minneapolis

Airports District Office, (612) 713–4363.

Public Agency: Monterey Peninsula

Airport District, Monterey, California.

Application Number: 00–06–C–00–

MRY.

Application Type: Impose and use a

PFC.

PFC Level: $3.00.

Total PFC Revenue Approved in this

Decision: $335,031.

Earliest Charge Effective Date: March

1, 2001.

Estimated Charge Expiration Date:

September 1, 2001.

Class of Air Carriers Not Required to

Collect PFC’s: Unscheduled Part 135 air

taxis.

Determination: Approved. Based on

information contained in the public

agency’s application, the FAA has

determined that the approved class

accounts for less than 1 percent of the

total annual enplanements at Monterey

Peninsula Airport.

Brief Description of Projects Approved

for Collection and Use:

Rehabilitate terminal storm drain.

Expand safety building.

Reconstruct southeast hangar

pavement.

Year 2000 assessment/upgrade

security access system.

South ramp security fence.

Taxiway D reconstruction.

Southeast water main extension.

Upgrade airfield lighting system.

South ramp storm drain extension.

Environmental study for runway 10R/

28L service road.

Environmental study for airport road

extension, phases 2 and 3.

North side perimeter fence

replacement.

Upper mezzanine elevator.

Fire apparatus pump upgrade.

Brief Description of Disapproved

Project: Vegetation/wildlife

management plan.

Determination: Disapproved. This

project is not eligible planning or

development under the Airport

Improvement Program (AIP), appendix

2, FAA Order 5100.38A, AIP Handbook

(October 24, 1989). The project

description submitted in the application

did not include sufficient detail to allow

the FAA to make a positive eligibility

determination. Therefore, this project

does not meet the requirements of

§ 158.15(b).

Decision Date: December 6, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Marlys Vandervelde, San Francisco

Airports District Office, (650) 876–2806.

Public Agency: City of Billings,

Aviation and Transit Department,

Billings, Montana.

Application Number: 00–03–C–00–

BLI.

Application Type: Impose and use a

PFC.