21498 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 78 / Friday, April 21, 2000 / Notices

properties; however, a reconnaissance of

the proposed launch site and reentry,

landing and recovery site identified two

potential historic properties. The first

site is a previously recorded historic

property that has been the subject of two

previous data recovery efforts by the

DOE. The second site was previously

undiscovered. A data recovery plan to

avoid adverse impacts to the previously

undiscovered site was approved by the

Nevada State Historic Preservation

Office (SHPO) and the Advisory Council

on Historic Preservation (ACHP). It was

also determined that additional data

recovery efforts on the previously

discovered site would not yield new

significant information (Nevada State

SHPO September 23, 1997) (ACHP

October 1, 1997).

To ensure that Native American

concerns are considered and data

recovery is conducted in a culturally

sensitive manner, representatives of the

Owens Valley Paiutes, Western

Shoshones, and Southern Paiutes

participated in the data recovery. The

Rapid Cultural Assessment Team

conducted an assessment and

recommended measures to mitigate

impacts to traditional cultural

properties. Activities would be

conducted in accordance with Section

106 of the National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966.

Transportation

Additional on-site and off-site traffic

generated by the Kistler proposed

activities is expected to be minimal.

Existing roads would accommodate

additional traffic. The closing of two

paved roads on NTS during launch and

reentry activities for approximately onehour per launch would be a temporary

disruption.

Health and Safety

Worker health and safety issues arise

primarily from accidents during

construction, decontamination,

decommissioning, and maintenance

activities as well as from explosions,

fires, or spills. Generally the impact

would be limited to workers within the

vicinity of the accident. For hazardous

operations, workers would be removed

to safe distances in case of a

catastrophic event.

The health and safety of the general

public would not be affected due to the

remote location of the NTS. The

potential to affect the public would be

limited to actual in-flight emergencies.

The flight ascent profile is designed to

minimize risk to the public. Current

Health and Safety programs at the NTS

enhance Kistler’s ability to respond to

an on-site emergency. Accident

scenarios would be detailed and

evaluated in the Safety Review

conducted by the FAA as part of its

licensing and regulatory program.

At no time does the launch vehicle

enter airspace controlled by the FAA for

general and commercial aviation. Most

proposed Kistler flights stay within NTS

airspace; however, certain launch

trajectories require flight outside

restricted airspace and above FAA

controlled airspace. On these missions,

vehicle altitude remains greater than

45,720 meters (150,000 feet) in airspace

not used by general or commercial

aviation.

Kistler launch and reentry/recovery

facilities would be located within the

NTS and adjacent to the Nevada Test

and Training Range. The nearest air

traffic route used by civil aviation

during a launch would be Jet Route 80–

58 (J80–58), between Wilson Creek and

Tonopah, Nevada. Upon reentry, the

nearest air traffic route is J92 between

Beatty and Boulder City, Nevada.

Because of altitude separation distances,

the nearest civil air traffic route

structure would not be affected and no

significant impacts are expected.

Therefore, no adverse impacts to

worker, public, or civil aviation health

and safety are expected.

Cumulative Impacts

The proposed action has been

evaluated for cumulative impacts on air

quality, noise, socioeconomic, biological

resources, cultural and Native American

resources, transportation, and health

and safety. The NTS EIS assessed

foreseeable future actions, including the

proposed Kistler activities. The NTS EIS

concluded that no cumulative effects are

expected as a result of the proposed

Kistler facilities and operations.

No Action Alternative

Under the No Action Alternative, the

FAA would issue a license for Kistler to

conduct launch operations. The General

Use Permit between DOE and the

NTSDC would continue to exist but the

subpermit between the NTSDC and

Kistler would be void. Predicted

environmental impacts of the proposed

launch and reentry activities would not

occur and the project area would remain

in its current state.

Determination

An analysis of the proposed action

has concluded that there are no

significant short-term or long-term

effects to the environment or

surrounding populations. After careful

and thorough consideration of the facts

contained herein, the undersigned finds

that the proposed Federal action is

consistent with existing national

environmental policies and objectives as

set forth in Section 101(a) of NEPA and

that it will not significantly affect the

quality of the human environment or

otherwise include any condition

requiring consultation pursuant to

Section 102 (2) (C) of NEPA. Therefore,

an Environmental Impact Statement for

the proposed action would not be

required.

Issued in Washington, DC on April 13,

2000.

Patricia G. Smith,

Associate Administrator for Commercial

Space Transportation.

[FR Doc. 00–9830 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE–2000–15]

Petitions for Exemption; Summary of

Petitions Received; Dispositions of

Petitions Issued

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petitions for

exemption received and of dispositions

of prior petitions.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to FAA’s rulemaking

provisions governing the application,

processing, and disposition of petitions

for exemption (14 CFR part 11), this

notice contains a summary of certain

petitions seeking relief from specified

requirements of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR Chapter I),

dispositions of certain petitions

previously received, and corrections.

The purpose of this notice is to improve

the public’s awareness of, and

participation in, this aspect of FAA’s

regulatory activities. Neither publication

of this notice nor the inclusion or

omission of information in the summary

is intended to affect the legal status of

any petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on petitions received

must identify the petition docket

number involved and must be received

on or before May 15, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on any

petition in triplicate to: Federal

Aviation Administration, Office of the

Chief Counsel, Attn: Rule Docket (AGC–

200), Petition Docket No. llll, 800

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20591.

Comments may also be sent

electronically to the following internet

address: 9-NPRM-cmts@faa.gov.

The petition, any comments received,

and a copy of any final disposition are

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 78 / Friday, April 21, 2000 / Notices 21499

filed in the assigned regulatory docket

and are available for examination in the

Rules Docket (AGC–200), Room 915G,

FAA Headquarters Building (FOB 10A),

800 Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202)

267–3132.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cherie Jack (202) 267–7271 or Vanessa

Wilkins (202) 267–8029 Office of

Rulemaking (ARM–1), Federal Aviation

Administration, 800 Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.

This notice is published pursuant to

paragraphs (c), (e), and (g) of § 11.27 of

Part 11 of the Federal Aviation

Regulations (14 CFR Part 11).

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 18,

2000.

Donald P. Byrne,

Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations.

Petitions for Exemption

Docket No.: 2857.

Petitioner; Flight Structures.

Section of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

25.813(b), 25.857(e), 25.785(d),

25.1447(c)(3)(ii).

Description of Relief Sought: To allow

carriage of one additional

supernumerary increasing the total

occupants to 9 on the Airbus Model

A300–B4–103, –203 series airplanes.

Docket No.: CE160.

Petitioner; Ayres Corporation.

Section of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

23.3.

Description of Relief Sought: To

permit certification of the Ayres

Corporation Model LM200 as a

Commuter Category airplane with a

novel and unusual twin engine, singlepropeller propulsion system.

Docket No.: 27802.

Petitioner; Richmor Aviation.

Section of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

21.197(c)(2).

Description of Relief Sought: To

permit the issuance of a special flight

permit with continuous authorization to

Richmor for aircraft that are operated

and maintained in accordance with 14

CFR 135.411(a)(1) and 135.419,

‘‘Approved Aircraft Inspection

Program.’’

Docket No.: 29937.

Petitioner; Southern California

Aviation, Inc.

Section of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

145.35 and 145.37.

Description of Relief Sought: To

permit SCAI to perform aircraft storage

related maintenance without meeting all

the housing and facility requirements

required by 145.35 and 145.37.

Dispositions of Petitions

Docket No.: 26533.

Petitioner: Parachute Laboratories,

Inc., doing business as Jump Shack.

Section of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

105.43(a).

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit (1) Jump Shack

to allow its employees, representatives,

and other volunteer experimental

parachute test jumpers under its direct

supervision and control to make

intentional tandem parachute jumps

while wearing a dual-harness, dualparachute pack having at least one main

parachute and one approved auxiliary

parachute packed in accordance with

105.43(a), and (2) pilots in command of

aircraft involved in these operations to

allow such persons to make these

parachute jumps. Grant, 03/10/2000,

Exemption No. 5448D.

Docket No.: 28797.

Petitioner: Air Tractor Inc.

Section of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

36.1(a)(2).

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit Air Tractor Inc.’s

models AT–602, AT–802, and AT–802A

airplanes, which are currently excepted

from the requirements of 36.1(a)(2) as

‘‘agricultural aircraft,’’ to be exempted

from the applicable noise certification

requirements of 14 CFR part 36 for the

purpose of spill eradication. Denial, 11/

29/99, Exemption No. 7080.

Docket No.: 29577.

Petitioner: Bombardier Aerospace

Corporation, Bombardier Business Jet

Solutions Inc.

Section of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

47.13(g) and 49.13(d).

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit petitioners to

‘‘use the powers of attorney now on file

for the present owners * * * for a

period of 6 years from the date of the

grant of exemption or until such earlier

date as each respective owners has

terminated their interest in the

concerned aircraft.’’ Specific aircraft

have been identified to whose owners

any waiver would apply. Denial, 03/29–

03/2000, Exemption No. 7138.

Docket No.: 29721.

Petitioner: LET, a.s.

Section of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

C36.9(e)(1).

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit the 1-g stall

speed used for the 14 CFR part 25

airworthiness certification to also be

used for the 14 CFR part 36 noise

certification for the approach reference

and test limitations on the LET L–106G

model airplane. Grant, 11/30/99,

Exemption No. 7081.

Docket No.: 28457.

Petitioner: Mr. Clifford L. Hoyle.

Section of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

21.19(b)(1).

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit Mr. Hoyle to

apply for a supplemental type certificate

for a design change to his Grob 103

Twin II glider (registration N39810,

Serial No. 3913) to install a Bombardier

Rotax 582 engine providing selflaunching and sustained flight

capabilities. Partial Grant, 03/08/2000,

Exemption No. 7142.

Docket No.: 29736.

Petitioner: Tulsa Air & Space Center

Airshows, Inc.

Section of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

91.315, 119.5(g), and 119.21(a).

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit Tulsa Air &

Space to operate its former military B–

52, which is certified in the limited

category, for the purpose of carrying

passengers on local flights for

compensation or hire, subject to certain

conditions. Grant, 02/18/2000,

Exemption No. 7126.

Docket No.: 29836.

Petitioner: Southwest Airlines, Co.

Section of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

121.434(c) (1) (ii).

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit Southwest to

substitute a qualified and authorized

check airman in place of an FAA

inspector to observe a qualifying PIC

who is completing initial or upgrade

training specified in 121.424 during at

least on flight leg that includes a takeoff

and a landing. Grant, 02/28/2000,

Exemption No. 7132.

Docket No.: 29867.

Petitioner: Jetstream Aviation.

Section of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

135.143 (c)(2).

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit Jetstream

Aviation to operate its Cessna Model

310N (Registration No. N4165Q, Serial

No. 310N–0065) and Piper PA–28

Cherokee 140 (Registration No. N657CA,

Serial No. 28–22371) airplanes under

part 135 without a TSO–C112 (Mode S)

transponder installed on each airplane.

Grant, 03/01/2000, Exemption No. 7134.

Docket No.: 29951.

Petitioner: Evergreen International

Airlines, Inc.

Section of the FAR Affected: 14 CFR

SFAR No. 79.

Description of Relief Sought/

Disposition: To permit Evergreen

International Airlines, Inc. to operate

one flight to Pyongyang, the capital city

of the Democratic People‘s Republic of

Korea DPRK, on or about March 15,

2000, subject to certain conditions and

limitations. Grant, 03/10/2000,

Exemption No. 7145.

[FR Doc. 00–10017 Filed 4–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M