1182 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 4 / Friday, January 5, 2001 / Notices

AMENDMENTS TO PFC APPROVALS—Continued

Amendment No. city, state Amendment

approved date

Original approved net

PFC revenue

Amended approved net

PFC revenue

Original estimated charge

exp. date

Amendment

estimated

charge exp.

date

98–03–C–03–CRW. Charleston, WV .................................. 11/14/00 662,687 665,222 03/01/99 03/01/99

98–04–C–01–CRW. Charleston, WV .................................. 11/14/00 1,257,285 1,253,835 01/01/01 01/01/01

98–05–U–02–CRW, Charleston, WV .................................. 11/14/00 NA NA NA NA

00–06–C–01–CRW, Charleston, WV .................................. 11/14/00 992,810 1,051,081 08/01/02 08/01/02

98–02–C–01–FLL, Fort Lauderdale, FL .............................. 11/15/00 190,129,976 191,105,272 11/01/07 11/01/07

97–01–C–01–SDF. Louisville, KY ....................................... 11/15/00 40,000,000 90,600,000 05/01/07 01/01/15

*97–03–C–01–EGE, Eagle, CO ........................................... 11/17/00 8,132,130 8,132,130 03–01–12 06–01–09

95–03–C–01–SYE, Syracuse, NY ....................................... 11/12/00 6,239,050 6,737,425 04/01/97 04/01/97

96–02–C–01–SYR, Syracuse, NY ....................................... 11/21/00 7,887,547 8,019,927 02/01/01 02/01/01

98–03–U–01–SYR, Syracuse, NY ....................................... 11/21/00 NA NA NA NA

*93–01–C–02–CHA, Chattanooga, TN ................................ 11/21/00 8,568,925 9,550,221 07/01/05 11/01/04

*99–03–C–01–ALO, Waterloo, IA ........................................ 11/27/00 763,830 763,830 11/01/03 05/01/03

*99–03–C–01–DUJ, Du Bois, PA ........................................ 11/29/00 172,710 160,109 06/01/03 2/01/03

(Note: The amendments denoted by an asterisk (*) include a change to the PFC level charged from $3.00 per enplaned passenger to $4.50

per enplaned passenger. For Eagle, CO, Chattanooga, TN, and Du Bois, PN, this change is effective on April 1, 2001. For Waterloo, IA, this

change is effective on July 1, 2001.)

Issued in Washington, DC, on December

28, 2000.

Eric Gabler,

Manager, Passenger Facility Charge Branch.

[FR Doc. 01–268 Filed 1–4–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on Application

(01–07–C–00–JAC) To Impose and To

Use a Passenger Facility Charge (PFC)

at the Jackson Hole Airport, Submitted

by the Jackson Hole Airport Board,

Jackson, WY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent to rule on

application.

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and

invites public comment on the

application to use a PFC at the Jackson

Hole Airport under the provisions of 49

U.S.C. 40117 and Part 158 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 158).

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before February 5, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this

application may be mailed or delivered

in triplicate to the FAA at the following

address: Alan Wiechmann, Manager;

Denver Airports District Office, DEN–

ADO; Federal Aviation Administration;

26805 E. 68th Avenue, Suite 224;

Denver, CO 80249–6361.

In addition, one copy of any

comments submitted to the FAA must

be mailed or delivered to Mr. George

Larson, Airport Director, at the

following address: Jackson Hole Airport

Board, P.O. Box 159, Jackson, Wyoming

83001.

Air Carriers and foreign air carriers

may submit copies of written comments

previously provided to Jackson Hole

Airport, under section 158.23 of Part

158.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Christopher Schaffer, (303) 342–1258;

Denver Airports District Office, DEN–

ADO; Federal Aviation Administration;

26805 E. 68th Avenue, Suite 224;

Denver, CO 80249–6361. The

application may be reviewed in person

at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA

proposes to rule and invites public

comment on the application (01–07–C–

00–JAC) to use a PFC at the Jackson

Hole Airport, under the provisions of 49

U.S.C. 40117 and Part 158 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 158).

On December 27, 2000, the FAA

determined that the application to

impose a PFC submitted by the Jackson

Hole Airport Board, Jackson Hole

Airport, Jackson, Wyoming, was

substantially complete within the

requirements of section 158.25 of Part

158. The FAA will approve or

disapprove the application, in whole or

in part, no later than March 30, 2001.

The following is a brief overview of

the application.

Level of the proposed PFC: $4.50.

Proposed charge effective date: June

1, 2002.

Proposed charge expiration date:

January 1, 2003.

Total requested for use approval:

$190,430.00.

Brief description of proposed project:

Install medium intensity approach

lighting system; air carrier apron

reconstruction; snow removal

equipment.

Class or classes of air carriers which

the public agency has requested not be

required to collect PFC’s: None.

Any person may inspect the

application in person at the FAA office

listed above under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT and at the FAA

Regional Airports Office located at:

Federal Aviation Administration,

Northwest Mountain Region, Airports

Division, ANM–600, 1601 Lind Avenue

SW., Suite 540, Renton, WA 98055–

4056.

In addition, any person may, upon

request, inspect the application, notice

and other documents germane to the

application in person at the Jackson

Hole Airport.

Issued in Renton, Washington on

December 27, 2000.

David A. Field,

Manager, Planning, Programming and

Capacity Branch, Northwest Mountain

Region.

[FR Doc. 01–349 Filed 1–4–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Policy Statement Number ACE–00–

23.901(d)(2)]

Issuance of Policy Memorandum,

Notice of Compliance with the Engine

Ingestion Requirements Applicable to

Turbine Powered, 14 CFR Part 23,

Normal, Utility, Acrobatic, and

Commuter Category Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of policy statement.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 4 / Friday, January 5, 2001 / Notices 1183

SUMMARY: This document announces an

FAA general statement of policy

applicable to turbine powered, normal,

utility, acrobatic, and commuter

category airplanes. This document

advises the public, in particular, small

airplane owners and modifiers, of more

information related to compliance with

the engine ingestion requirements

applicable to turbine powered, part 23,

normal, utility, acrobatic, and commuter

category airplanes. This notice is

necessary to tell the public of FAA

policy.

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–00–23.901(d)(2).

The purpose of this statement is to

address compliance with the engine

ingestion requirements applicable to

turbine powered, part 23, normal,

utility, acrobatic, and commuter

category airplanes.

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 relevant

to compliance with the engine ingestion

requirements applicable to turbine

powered, part 23, normal, utility,

acrobatic, and commuter category

airplanes.

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 53338) 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 one comment. The

commenter, while fully agreeing with

the content, noted that the policy would

be better if in an FAA Advisory

Circular. We have noted the

commenter’s concerns. We will

eventually provide the pertinent

information in this policy in a revision

to Advisory Circular 23–16, Powerplant

Guide for Certification of Part 23

Airplanes. In the interim, the issuance

of a policy statement is more timely and

effective. Additionally, experience with

a recent certification project resulted in

further clarification of the draft policy.

As a result, we have explained

compliance considerations related to

critical conditions for turbopropeller

engine installations as compared to

turbojet/fan engine installations. If these

added compliance considerations cause

concern, please send your comments to

<randy.griffith@faa.gov>.

The Policy

Background

The current § 23.901(d)(2)

requirement was incorporated by

Amendment 23–53. However, the basic

requirement, which has evolved into the

current § 23.901(d)(2), was incorporated

by Amendment 23–18.

Amendment 23–18 required that the

engine installation provide continued

engine operation without a sustained

loss of power when operated at flight

idle in rain for at least three minutes.

The rate of rain ingestion was to be not

less than 4 percent, by weight, of the

engine induction airflow rate. The rule

was incorporated due to reports of

turbine engine power loss while

operating in heavy rain. The intent of

the rule was twofold: (1) to ensure that

installation effects do not result in

deterioration of the engine’s rain

ingestion tolerance determined by

engine certification; and (2) to evaluate

the engine’s capability for rain ingestion

for engines that were certificated before

Amendment 33–6 since rain ingestion

requirements were not added to 14 CFR

part 33 until Amendment 33–6.

Therefore, the rate of rain ingestion to

be considered was based upon the part

33 engine certification requirement at

the time.

Revisions of Standards

Amendment 23–29 revised the

requirement to consider rated takeoff

power/thrust. Also, the preamble to

Amendment 23–29 further defined the

intent of § 23.901(d)(2) by specifically

stating that the rule is to ensure that

installation effects do not result in any

deterioration of the powerplant rain

ingestion tolerance. Therefore,

compliance with § 23.901(d)(2) required

a separate determination for engine

installation other than the requirements

addressed by part 33 (for example,

engine certification without further

installation certification is inadequate to

demonstrate compliance with the part

23 requirement).

Amendment 23–43 added a

requirement that the installation be

evaluated at the maximum installed

power/thrust for takeoff. This new

requirement was due to engine

installations where rated takeoff power

could be less than installed takeoff

power; for example, de-rate thrust. The

amendment also added a requirement

that the engine be accelerated and

decelerated safely under the rain

conditions; however, Amendment 23–

51 removed this consideration.

Amendment 23–53 added the current

rule. The current amendment requires

the installed engine to withstand

ingestion of rain, hail, ice, and birds at

a level not less than that established

under engine certification. The

significant changes with the new rule

include operating concerns other than

loss of power (for example, engine

surges), the addition of hail, ice, and

bird ingestion requirements, and

replacement of specific rain

quantification with the conditions used

during engine certification. Under

Amendment 23–53, the airplane

applicant needs to evaluate the

conditions used to address rain, hail,

ice, and bird ingestion during engine

certification and how the installation

relates to these conditions.

Means of Compliance

When showing compliance with the

rain ingestion requirements for all

amendment levels of § 23.901(d)(2),

compliance is typically accomplished

with design analysis that identifies areas

of concern and test when there are areas

of concern. Part 33 engine certification

testing may be used for compliance if

the engine certification testing (1)

addressed the areas of concern

identified by the installation design

analysis (for example, use of an

installation representative test inlet

system) and (2) specific conditions

addressed in the rule were addressed

1184 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 4 / Friday, January 5, 2001 / Notices

during engine certification testing. For

airplanes with a certification basis prior

to Amendment 23–53, test is typically

required if the specific operating

considerations contained in the part 23

rule were not addressed during engine

certification.

When evaluating areas of concern

with the installation, consider areas

where water pooling with subsequent

ingestion or shed of localized ‘‘slugs’’ of

water normally not addressed during

engine certification might occur. Some

examples are inlet system channels,

indentations, and so forth. These are

typical of turbopropeller or S-duct type

inlets that have complex geometry to

allow water pooling. This consideration

is usually not a concern with simple

pitot style inlets typical of most part 23

turbofan/jet engine installations.

However, due to the large diversity of

turbine engine installations in part 23

airplanes, all installations should be

evaluated to determine if areas of

concern exist. For example, there are

turbofan installations that use S-style

inlet ducts that may have areas of

concern.

Therefore, part 23 turbine engine

installations typically require testing

since the vast majority of these are

turbopropeller installations. However, if

design analysis shows that the

installation will not affect the water

ingestion characteristics (for example, a

simple and typical pitot style inlet

installation) and engine certification

addressed the specific conditions

addressed in the part 23 rule, this

analysis combined with engine

certification testing may be adequate to

demonstrate rain ingestion compliance.

Also, since the rain ingestion

requirements in part 33 were not added

until Amendment 33–6, the airplane

applicant needs to evaluate the engine’s

certification basis to determine if the

engine has been subjected to part 33

rain ingestion testing. If the engine does

not have Amendment 33–6 or a

subsequent amendment as part of the

certification basis, in accordance with

§ 23.903(a)(2)(iii), the engine must have

a safe service history of rain ingestion in

similar installations.

If it is determined that testing for rain

ingestion should be performed, flight

test is not required. The intent of the

part 23 rule is to ensure that the engine

installation has not deteriorated the rain

ingestion tolerance of the certificated

engine. Since a ground static engine test

normally demonstrates engine

certification compliance, use of

installation ground tests at the required

power/thrust settings has been

commonly accepted as a means of

compliance.

The applicant can use design analysis

to determine critical configurations and

conditions of the installation. This

might reduce required installation tests

to the critical configurations and

conditions instead of repeating the

entire part 33 test conditions. Engine

certification should address the results

of the critical point analysis for the

engine; therefore, it is important for the

engine installer to research the

conditions and requirements used for

engine certification.

Other Considerations for Compliance

Amendment 23–53 also added

requirements for ice, hail, and birds.

Examples of installation issues normally

not addressed by engine certification,

but that should be addressed for

installation compliance, include the

following: ice build-up on areas where

ice shed may be ingested by the engines

(for example, ice shed from wings and

airframe sources into aft mounted

engines) and consideration of items

such as inlet splitters, acoustic liners,

and so forth, that may be damaged by

impact with ice, hail, and birds.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on

December 14, 2000.

Michael Gallagher,

Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft

Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 01–347 Filed 1–4–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

Environmental Impact Statement:

Rensselaer County, NY

AGENCY: Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

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 Rensselaer County, New York.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas C. Werner, Regional Director,

New York State Department of

Transportation, Region One, 84

Holland Avenue, Albany, New York

12208, Telephone: (518) 474–6178.

or

A. Graham Bailey, Acting Division

Administrator, Federal Highway

Administration, New York Division,

Leo W. O’Brien Federal Building, 7th

Floor, Clinton Avenue and North

Pearl Street, Albany, New York 12207,

Telephone: (518) 431–4127.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

FHWA in cooperation with the New

York State Department of

Transportation (NYSDOT), will be

preparing an Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) in accordance with the

National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) on a proposal to provide a new

connector road to Interstate 90 (I–90), in

Rensselaer County, New York. The

proposed improvement would involve

the construction of a new limited access

highway that extends from the terminus

of the existing Interstate 90 Exit 8 at

Route 43 northerly on an alignment

about 1⁄2 mile west of Route 4 and

curving northeasterly to an intersection

with Route 4 in the vicinity of the

Hudson Valley Community College

(HVCC), a distance of 5.1 km (3 miles).

Improvements to the corridor are

considered necessary to provide for the

projected traffic demand. Project

objectives include reducing forecast

congestion and promoting economic

development along the Route 4 corridor,

supporting the land use goals and

master plans of local communities, and

improving mobility for pedestrians,

bicyclists, and transit users. The project

also seeks to establish an Intelligent

Transportation System (ITS) ‘‘in situ

laboratory facility’’ on the new roadway

and segments of the other existing area

roadways.

Alternatives under consideration

include: (1) providing a new limited

access highway from the terminus of the

existing Interstate 90 Exit 8 northerly to

terminate at Route 136 (Williams Road);

(2) providing a new limited access

highway from the terminus of the

existing Interstate 90 Exit 8 northerly to

the vicinity of the Hudson Valley

Community College (HVCC).

Incorporated into and studied with the

alternatives will be design variations of

grade and alignment and intersection

modifications.

Letters describing the proposed action

and soliciting comments will be sent to

appropriate Federal, State, and local

agencies, and to private organizations

and citizens who have previously

expressed interest in this proposal. Also

planned are early coordination and

exchanges of information meetings,

direct requests to other agencies to

become cooperating agencies, and early

notification and solicitation with

entities affected by the proposed action

through the clearinghouse process. A

series of public information meetings

and public hearings will be held

between January and December, 2001.

Public notice will be given of the time

and place of the meetings and hearings.

The draft EIS will be available for public

and agency review and comment. No