30472 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 92 / Thursday, May 11, 2000 / Notices

reduction was recommended by EPA for

noise attenuation. TVA’s response is as

follows: TVA has committed to further

study the noise levels in the vicinity of

the site to determine whether additional

noise mitigation is needed and to

identify appropriate mitigation

methods. Source reduction in noise

levels may not be the most cost effective

way to prevent adverse impacts to area

residents. TVA prefers to follow a plan

to confirm the existence of community

noise concerns, and to obtain adequate

noise data which would allow for the

verification of the legitimacy of the

complaints and support the structuring

of a suitable mitigation measure. This

approach would avoid committing to a

solution to a problem which may or may

not exist, or be the best solution. As

noted in the FEIS, potential mitigation

measures include techniques for

reducing noise at its source and

methods that would reduce noise at

receptor locations.

EPA comment on TVA response 55 in

the FEIS expressed a potential for an

environmental justice (EJ) concern

based on the demographics presented by

TVA. There were also questions

concerning the extent and success of

public interaction with respect to EJ.

TVA’s response is as follows: As

discussed in the FEIS, there are only

three occupied dwellings within one

mile of the Lagoon Creek Site. The EIS

found only minimal environmental

impacts and no significant

environmental impacts on the residents

of area surrounding the site. Due to the

lack of significant impacts and the

sparse population in the area, no EJ

concerns were found. As discussed in

Chapter 2 of the FEIS, the site screening

process included several other sites for

this project, but they were determined

to be less suitable than the sites in

Haywood County. Some of these sites

have relatively smaller minority

populations than does Haywood

County. Residents of the surrounding

area were given various options for

expressing any concerns they might

have. All affected landowners (over

100), which included all adjacent

properties, were sent copies of the

Executive Summaries of the Draft and

Final EISs, along with an invitation to

the public meeting on the DEIS. The

meeting itself included not only a

presentation about the project, but also,

prior to the formal presentation, an open

house where anyone could talk

individually with TVA staff to discuss

concerns or ask questions. Fewer than

fifteen private citizens attended the

public meeting on the DEIS, despite

several paid advertisements in local and

regional newspapers and a TVA news

release, each describing the availability

of the DEIS and the public meeting date

and time. No oral or written comments

were received from any Haywood

County resident not affiliated with local

government. Among the elected officials

involved, participants included one

African American member of County

Commission. None of the public

comments received expressed concern

about EJ issues. Benefits associated with

the project include increased public

revenues, along with a very small

increase in employment and income in

the area

EPA comment on TVA response 57 in

the FEIS was concerned with induced

economic impacts due to increased

power system reliability. TVA’s

response is as follows: Our approach in

preparing the FEIS section on Indirect

Impacts was to assess the local (within

the county) induced impacts of the

proposed project. In keeping with CEQ

guidance for evaluating indirect or

induced effects, we believe that the

regional effects of this proposal are not

‘‘reasonably foreseeable’’, or close

enough in time and distance to the

proposed project for a meaningful

evaluation. Such an evaluation would

certainly be speculative and qualitative,

since it could not be predicted how,

where, and when the additional peaking

power would be used in the region, and

consequently of little use to decisionmakers regarding initiation of the

proposal. We agree that basic utilities

are critical to the economic viability of

most any industry. TVA’s mandate, as

defined in the 1933 TVA Act, is, among

other things, to provide reliable, lowcost power to the Tennessee Valley

region and to foster industrial

development for the economic good of

the people of the region. It is our hope

that more reliable peaking power and

other infrastructure being developed by

TVA will be attractive to potential new

industries and lead to the expansion of

existing ones. However, we believe that

economic growth should not sacrifice

environmental quality. We further

believe that the regulatory programs of

the various Valley states, in conjunction

with TVA programs for sustaining the

quality of the environment in the region,

will allow economic growth to occur in

a manner that maintains or enhances

environmental quality.

Dated: May 1, 2000.

Joseph R. Bynum,

Executive Vice President, Fossil Power Group.

[FR Doc. 00–11859 Filed 5–10–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8120–08–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Changes in Permissible Stage 2

Airplane Operations

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of statutory changes.

SUMMARY: The FAA is publishing notice

of further changes to the Airport Noise

and Capacity Act that except certain

airplanes from the law and allow

operation of Stage 2 airplanes after

December 31, 1999, under specified

circumstances. This notice is

necessitated by Congressional action

taken in April 2000 to modify the

statutory changes adopted in November

1999. This notice explains the effect of

the changes.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Thomas Connor, Manager, Noise

Division (AEE–100), Office of

Environment and Energy, FAA, 800

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202)

267–8933, fax (202) 267–5594, email

Thomas. Connor@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

The Airport Noise and Capacity Act of

1990 (ANCA) prohibits the operation of

civil subsonic turbojet Stage 2 airplanes

over 75,000 pounds in the contiguous

United States after December 31, 1999.

The original version of the law did not

distinguish airplanes by type of

certification or operation. The waiver

provisions of the original law are very

limited, and address only limited

revenues operation of Stage 2 airplanes

by U.S. air carriers.

On November 29, 1999, the President

signed into law certain changes to

ANCA that affect operators of Stage 2

airplanes. The prohibit on revenue

operations of Stage 2 airplanes after

December 31, 1999, remained in effect.

The Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA) was not granted any new

authority to allow anyone to operate at

Stage 2 airplane in revenue service after

December 31, 1999. The changes to the

law were summarized in the Federal

Register document published December

17, 1999 (64 FR 70571).

On April 5, 2000, new authorizing

legislation became effective. That bill,

the Wendell H. Ford Aviation

investment and Reform Act for the 21st

Century, Public Law 10–181 (Apr. 5,

2000; 114 Stat. 61) (AIR 21) repealed the

legislative changes that were adopted in

November 1999 and were described in

the Federal Register notice cited above.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 92 / Thursday, May 11, 2000 / Notices 30473

The repealed provisions were re-enacted

in AIR 21 with two additions.

New Provisions

Foreign Air Carrier Waivers

The original language of ANCA did

not allow foreign air carriers to apply for

a waiver from the Stage 2 prohibition in

the law. The AIR 21 amendment

expanded the waiver provision, 49

U.S.C. 47528(b), to allow foreign air

carriers, for a limited time, to apply for

a waiver from the Stage 3 aircraft

requirement of 49 U.S.C. 47528(a). The

amendment requires that a foreign air

carrier seeking a waiver must apply ‘‘not

later than * * * the 15th day following

the date of enactment of [AIR 21].’’ The

law was enacted April 5, 2000; foreign

air carriers seeking a waiver from

section 47528(a) must have filed an

application for waiver no later than

April 20, 2000.

The FAA will consider any waiver

request filed by a foreign air carrier

under the same criteria that were used

to evaluate requests from domestic air

carriers. Those criteria are published at

14 CFR 91.873, and were summarized in

a Federal Register notice published on

March 2, 1998 (63 FR 10123).

Relationship to Part 161 Actions

In AIR 21, Congress re-enacted the

provisions that direct the Secretary of

Transportation to permit certain

nonrevenue flights to Stage 2 airplanes

over 75,000 pounds, 49 U.S.C. 47528(f).

A new paragraph (g), which reads as

follows, was added to that section:

(g) Statutory Construction.—Nothing in

this section may be construed as interfering

with, nullifying, or otherwise affecting

determinations made by the Federal Aviation

Administration, or to be made by the

Administration with respect to applications

under part 161 of title 14, Code of Federal

Regulations, that were pending on November

1, 1999.

Promulgated by the FAA in 1991

pursuant to ANCA, 14 CFR part 161 is

titled ‘‘Notice and Approval of Airport

Noise Access Restrictions,’’ and

provides a procedure under which local

airport authorities may impose

restrictions on Stage 2 and Stage 3

airplanes. On November 1, 1999, there

was one restriction on operation of

Stage 2 airplanes that had been adopted

by a local airport authority but had not

yet become effective. Prior to November

1, 1999, the FAA had made a

determination that this local restriction

was pre-empted by Federal law. The

FAA understands new paragraph (g) to

mean that this prior determination, and

any future determination regarding the

local restriction, are not affected by the

new provisions added to section 47528

by AIR 21.

The FAA has consistently held that

the statutory waiver authority it was

granted in ANCA in 1990 (49 U.S.C.

47528(b)) preempts any conflicting

restriction adopted by a local airport

authority. Similarly, the authority that

permits nonrevenue Stage 2 flights

under section 47528(f) also preempts

any conflicting local regulations. This

position is affirmed by the AIR 21

language, in that the authority given in

section 47528(f) is not discretionary.

The law states that ‘‘the Secretary shall

permit’’ Stage 2 flights that fall under

one of the categories listed in the law

(emphasis added). The FAA’s

interpretation of the new language in

paragraph (g) is consistent with the nondiscretionary nature of the FAA’s

authority under section 47528(f).

Previous Statutory Changes

As discussed above, the statutory

change that allows the FAA to grant

special flight authorizations for the

nonrevenue operation of certain Stage 2

airplanes was re-enacted in AIR 21.

Accordingly, except for the additions

noted above, the explanations provided

in the FAA’s December 17, 1999 Federal

Register notice remain applicable, and

the application procedure and form

have not been changed.

The FAA still plans to amend its

regulations at 14 CFR part 91, subpart I,

that are affected by the changes to its

statutory authority. The reasons for

these amendments remain the same as

published in December 1999.

The FAA was required under the

November 1999 legislation, and again by

AIR 21, to publish notice of the

procedures it will use to implement the

Stage 2 nonrevenue flight authority.

This notice fulfills that requirement by

informing affected persons that the

application procedure for a special

flight authorization for nonrevenue

Stage 2 flight remains as published in

December 1999.

The special flight authorization

application can be obtained on the

FAA’s web site (http://www.aee.faa.gov/

sfa/), or by fax or mail by contacting the

Office of Environment and Energy at the

number listed in the For Further

Information Contact section above. The

FAA reminds operators that requests for

special flight authorizations for

nonrevenue Stage 2 flights should be

filed 30 days before the planned flight.

Operators of Stage 2 airplanes that

have any questions concerning their

rights or requirements under AIR 21

language are encouraged to contact the

FAA as soon as possible.

Issued in Washington, DC on May 2, 2000.

Paul R. Dykeman,

Deputy Director, Office of Environment and

Energy.

[FR Doc. 00–11325 Filed 5–10–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

Environmental Impact Statement:

Faulkner County, Arkansas

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 (EIS)

will be prepared for a proposed highway

project in Faulkner County, Arkansas.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Amy Heflin, Community Planner,

Federal Highway Administration, 700

West Capitol, Rm 3130 Federal Office

Building, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201–

3298, Telephone: (501) 324–5625; or

Ronnie Hall, City Engineer, City of

Conway, 100 East Robins, Conway,

Arkansas 72032, Telephone: (501) 450–

6165; or Mike Lynch, Project Manager,

Garver Engineers, P.O. Box 50, Little

Rock, Arkansas 72203, Telephone (501)

376–3633.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

FHWA, in cooperation with the City of

Conway, Arkansas, and the Arkansas

Highway and Transportation

Department will prepare an

environmental impact statement (EIS)

on a proposal to construct a western

loop in Faulkner County, Arkansas. The

proposed project would involve the

construction of an arterial on a new

alignment starting west of the City of

Conway at Interstate Highway 40 and

terminating South of the City of Conway

on Interstate Highway 40. Construction

of a western loop is considered

necessary to provide for the existing and

projected traffic demand. A proposed

alignment and typical section for this

proposed project will be formulated

during development of the EIS.

Alternatives under consideration

include taking no action and location

alternatives to be identified during the

EIS 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 who have previously

expressed or are known to have interest

in this project. An agency scoping

meeting is planned early in the project